Am 04.06.2011 17:35, schrieb Pat Hayes: > Far as I can see, one could simply delete every range-string triple. Nothing > would break in the RDFS by doing this, and AFIKS nothing is gained from > having these range assertions.
Deleting every range assertion would not express what they want to say: "many properties have 'expected types'. This means that the value of the property can itself be an embedded item ... But this is not a requirement—it's fine to include just regular text or a URL." [1] They do not expect just anything, but a certain type or a literal (denoting an "informal" instance of this type). Sounds like schema:someProperty rdfs:range [ owl:unionOf (schema:Thing rdfs:Literal ) ]; What funny kind of OWL flavor or profile might this be? Note that they do not use owl:ObjectProperty nor owl:DatatypeProperty but simply rdf:Property, so it might be just fine. Good old RDFS! Some comments from the OWL police? Thomas [1] http://schema.org/docs/gs.html#schemaorg_expected > Pat > > On Jun 4, 2011, at 4:39 AM, Hugh Glaser wrote: > >> Sure does rock. >> As you know, I never venture into ontology definition, to avoid displaying >> my ignorance, but now and then... :-) >> Suggestion: >> >> The RDFS will (I think!) perpetuate the classic problem (being a natural >> translation), in that there are lots of range strings. >> For example: >> schema:currenciesAccepted a rdf:Property; >> rdfs:label "Currencies Accepted"@en; >> rdfs:comment "The currency accepted (in ISO 4217 currency format)."@en; >> rdfs:domain schema:LocalBusiness; >> rdfs:range xsd:string; >> rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://schema.org/currenciesAccepted>; >> . >> and >> schema:headline a rdf:Property; >> rdfs:label "Headline"@en; >> rdfs:comment "Headline of the article"@en; >> rdfs:domain schema:CreativeWork; >> rdfs:range xsd:string; >> rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://schema.org/headline>; >> . >> And even productID >> >> I count 53 "rdfs:range xsd:string" and 8 "rdfs:range [ owl:unionOf >> (xsd:decimal xsd:string) ]" of this kind. >> >> As I say, I think that means that to conform, I can't have a Resource as >> Range. >> So it is institutionalising a Bad Thing, simply because schema.org says >> that, for example, "productID" is "text". >> >> Of course, people who use http://schema.rdfs.org/ probably will use >> Resources for places, currencies, etc, (as they should) so maybe the RDFS >> needs to reflect this? >> >> Won't try and suggest... >> >> Best >> Hugh >> >> On 3 Jun 2011, at 22:06, Michael Hausenblas wrote: >> >>> http://schema.rdfs.org >>> >>> ... is now available - we're sorry for the delay ;) >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Michael >>> -- >>> Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow >>> LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre >>> DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute >>> NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway >>> Ireland, Europe >>> Tel. +353 91 495730 >>> http://linkeddata.deri.ie/ >>> http://sw-app.org/about.html >>> >>> >> -- >> Hugh Glaser, >> Intelligence, Agents, Multimedia >> School of Electronics and Computer Science, >> University of Southampton, >> Southampton SO17 1BJ >> Work: +44 23 8059 3670, Fax: +44 23 8059 3045 >> Mobile: +44 75 9533 4155 , Home: +44 23 8061 5652 >> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~hg/ >> >> >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 > 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office > Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax > FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile > phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes > > > > > > -- Thomas Bandholtz Principal Consultant innoQ Deutschland GmbH Halskestr. 17 D-40880 Ratingen, Germany Mail: [email protected] Mobile: +49 178 4049387 Phone: +49 228 9288490 Fax: +49 228 9288491 http://www.innoq.com/de/themen/linked-data
