On 01/22/2015 12:48 PM, Martin Hepp wrote: > Ah! Yes, that is also a viable way, much better than my proposal! The key advantage over my proposal is that the Python code for generating the documentation does not need to change - rangeIncludes effectively becomes rangeHint and domainIncludes domainHint, and the integrity constraint axioms will be modeled using rdfs:domain and rdfs:range with complex class definitions, as in this example (from GoodRelations): > > gr:condition a owl:DatatypeProperty; > rdfs:comment "A textual description of the condition of the product or service, or the products or services included in the offer (when attached to a gr:Offering)"@en; > rdfs:domain [ a owl:Class; > owl:unionOf (gr:Offering gr:ProductOrService) ]; > rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1>; > rdfs:label "condition (0..1)"@en; > rdfs:range rdfs:Literal. > Glad to hear that you like this twist on your proposal :) *IMO* it would also take us closer to comfortably basing work in Social WG on schema.org instead of creating parallel ActivityStream Extended Vocabulary (which BTW next weeks goes live as second WD and we just discussed again CR process for it during our telecon last tuesday) http://jasnell.github.io/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/activitystreams2-vocabulary.html#extendedtypes
Received on Thursday, 22 January 2015 12:15:50 UTC