W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > March 2014

RE: How to avoid that collections "break" relationships

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>
Message-ID: <003901cf4b9e$752f64f0$5f8e2ed0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
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

> And sorry, this is impossible.

Yes, unfortunately.

Markus Lanthaler
Received on Saturday, 29 March 2014 22:30:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:49:25 UTC