Re: Class hierarchy - MobilePhone

On 2 November 2016 at 17:58, Dierking, Howard
<> 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 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 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.


Received on Thursday, 3 November 2016 10:05:44 UTC