- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2014 22:27:57 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
On 7 June 2014 20:02, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > On 06/07/2014 11:40 AM, Dan Brickley wrote: > [...] >> Yes, indeed. >> >> In fact there's a new release of the site in preparation (I'll send a >> full msg monday) which makes 'inverse' relations navigable, as well as >> sub-property / super-property links in a property hierarchy too. > > > So the RDFS property hierarchy facility is now an official part of > schema.org? > > Are the properties in schema.org that state in comments that they have a > superproperty (e.g., collection) going to get superproperties? http://sdopending.appspot.com/collection http://sdopending.appspot.com/object etc. The corresponding definitions in the underlying config look like this, <div typeof="rdf:Property" resource="http://schema.org/collection"> <span class="h" property="rdfs:label">collection</span> <span property="rdfs:comment">A sub property of object. The collection target of the action.</span> <link property="rdfs:subPropertyOf" href="http://schema.org/object" /> <span>Domain: <a property="http://schema.org/domainIncludes" href="http://schema.org/UpdateAction">UpdateAction</a></span> <span>Range: <a property="http://schema.org/rangeIncludes" href="http://schema.org/Thing">Thing</a></span> </div> Once this settles down we ought to remove the redundant prose from the textual definition. Dan
Received on Saturday, 7 June 2014 21:28:25 UTC