- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 18:56:21 +0200
- To: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 24 July 2013 18:49, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote: > >> You are right; there was another small fix. Instead of the >> experimental 'domain' and 'range' properties, it now uses >> http://schema.org/domainIncludes and http://schema.org/rangeIncludes > Oh boy, I'm sorry, but... > > Those 2 are going to get us in trouble quick, unless you also include at > least 1 simple example on each of those property descriptions, Dan. Yes, you're right - they need examples. I'll get examples attached to Property and Class initially. They're mostly for internal documentation purposes (since rdfs:range and rdfs:domain weren't quite right). Given this use, it's probably best to handle their documentation alongside an update to http://schema.org/docs/extension.html i.e. showing how extensions proposals can be made machine readable. Dan
Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2013 16:56:48 UTC