- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 23:30:12 +0100
- To: "'Pat Hayes'" <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: <public-hydra@w3.org>, <public-lod@w3.org>, "'W3C Web Schemas Task Force'" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 5:26 AM, Pat Hayes wrote: > Hmm. I would be inclined to violate IRI opacity at this point and have > a convention that says that any schema.org property schema:ppp can have > a sister property called schema:pppList, for any character string ppp. > So you ought to check schema:knowsList when you are asked to look for > schema:knows. Then although there isn't a link in the conventional > sense, there is a computable route from schema:knows to > schema:knowsList, which as far as I am concerned amounts to a link. Schema.org doesn't suffer from this issue as much as other vocabularies do as it isn't defined with RDFS but uses its own, looser description mechanisms such as schema:domainIncludes and schema:rangeIncludes. So what I'm really looking for is a solution that would work in general, not just for some vocabularies. [...] > Well, there is going to have to be some pain somewhere. I get the > impression that you want all of these to be true at once: > > 1. schema:knows applies to both individuals and to documents listing > individuals, and works for both of them. > 2. schema:knows is declared to only have individuals in its range. No, I would be happy if it would be state explicitely that the range also include collections/lists. > 3. RDFS and OWL reasoning will work on schema:knows. No, not in the case of schema but there are other vocabularies where it is important. > And sorry, this is impossible. Yes, unfortunately. -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Saturday, 29 March 2014 22:30:56 UTC