Re: rdfs:domain and refs:range in

Dear "Dir Heist":
Instead of insulting people who dedicate a lot of time to advancing the World Wide Web, I recommend that

1. You talk to the person who signed you on for this mailing list and ask him/her to settle this.
2. You use a Web search engine with a query like "how to unsubscribe from w3c mailing list" (the first three hits will all provide helpful information).


By the way: The archive of this mailing list is publicly archived by the W3C (and by signing up you gave permission to this) [1], so your posts to this lists will remain visible on the WWW forever. And given the relatively high site authority of the W3C sites, there is a high chance that a future Web search (e.g. by an employer, a date, ...) for your name will bring this post (and follow-ups) among the top search results.

Please keep this in mind.

Best wishes



PS: -> "unsubcribe from this list" is your friend should options #1 or #2 fail.

> On 27 Nov 2016, at 03:49, Dir Heist <> wrote:
> ITT: Bunch of nerds
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 7:27 PM Martin Hepp <> wrote:
> > On 26 Nov 2016, at 23:30, Holger Knublauch <> wrote:
> >
> > IMHO neither rdfs:domain nor schema:domainIncludes are ideal for The whole notion of "global" property axioms is questionable. is class-centric and supposed to grow. To support its growth, properties should be attached locally to classes, in OO style.
> +1
> I think I argued in this direction 1 - 2 years ago on this mailing list. It will get very difficult to find catchy names for properties while avoiding conflicting definitions. The current pattern of prefixing potentially generic property names with a part from the class they are applicable to will not scale.
> Martin

Received on Monday, 28 November 2016 10:03:22 UTC