Re: sch:rangeIncludes / sch:domainIncludes vs rdfs:range / rdfs:domain

Hello Thomas,

Thank you for your reply Thomas.

That clears things up.

Regards,
James


On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 3:58 PM Thomas Francart <thomas.francart@sparna.fr>
wrote:

> Hello
>
> They are not the same.
> rdfs:range and rdfs:domain have precise logical entailment that
> sch:domainIncludes and sch:rangeIncludes don't have :
>
>    - if P rdfs:range X
>    - and x1 P x2
>    - then x2 is a X
>
> (Every value of P is automatically considered an X). As SDO defines
> multiple possibilities for the values of some properties (e.g. funder is
> Organization or Person), and does not want to have the kind of logical
> entailment that domain and range have, and always allow text as a value for
> a property, specific properties have been redefined.
>
> Cheers
> Thomas
>
>
> Le ven. 24 avr. 2020 à 21:43, James Hudson <jameshudson3010@gmail.com> a
> écrit :
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Perhaps I am missing something, but reading about rdfs:range and
>> rdfs:domain at https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/ and looking at how
>> sch:rangeIncludes and sch:domainIncludes are used, it would seem they are
>> expressing the same concepts.
>>
>> If this is accurate, why did schema.org not adopt rdfs:range and
>> rdfs:domain? Why create sch:rangeIncludes and sch:domainIncludes?
>>
>> Thank you,
>> James
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> *Thomas Francart* -* SPARNA*
> Web de *données* | Architecture de l'*information* | Accès aux
> *connaissances*
> blog : blog.sparna.fr, site : sparna.fr, linkedin :
> fr.linkedin.com/in/thomasfrancart
> tel :  +33 (0)6.71.11.25.97, skype : francartthomas
>