On Jun 11, 2011, at 9:55 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > All, > > Thanks for the thoughtful feedback regarding schema.rdfs.org, both here and > off-list. > > This is a collective response to various arguments brought up. I'll > paraphrase the arguments. > ...
>> Nothing is gained from the range assertions. They should be dropped. > > They capture a part of the schema.org documentation: the “expected type” of > each property. That part of the documentation would be lost. Conversely, > nothing is gained by dropping them. Let me respectfully disagree. Range assertions (in RDFS or OWL) do *not* capture the notion of "expected type". They state a strict actual type, and cannot be consistently be "over-ridden" by some other information. Which has the consequence that these are liable to be, quite often, plain flat wrong. Which in turn has the consequence that there is something to be gained by dropping them, to wit, internal consistency. They are not mere documentation; they have strictly entailed consequences which many actual reasoners can and will generate, and which to deny would be to violate the RDFS specs. If you don't want these conclusions to be generated, don't make the assertions that would sanction them. For documentation, use the structures provided in RDFS for documentation, such as rdfs:comment. Pat ------------------------------------------------------------ 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
