- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 10:05:10 +0000
- To: "Dierking, Howard" <Howard.Dierking@concur.com>
- Cc: "public-schemaorg@w3.org" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
On 2 November 2016 at 17:58, Dierking, Howard <Howard.Dierking@concur.com> wrote: > This is the closest thread I could find to a question I had, so apologies > for taking it a bit off topic. > > I’m curious why schema.org created domainIncludes and rangeIncludes rather > than using rdfs:domain and refs:range? My first thought was for in > internally consistent vocabulary, but I also noticed that there are also no > relationships to those other terms via subPropertyOf or the like, so I can’t > use any inferencing rules to get back to those rdfs definitions. Was this > break deliberate in that the schema.org meta terms are meant to convey > something different than the rdfs counterparts, and if so, what? We use the weaker domainIncludes and rangeIncludes constructions to avoid the need to create otherwise unnecessary super-types when there are several types used, and to leave some flexibility for the type/property associations to evolve over time as we refine and extend the schemas. Dan
Received on Thursday, 3 November 2016 10:05:44 UTC