Hi Danny, On 12 Jun 2011, at 17:57, Danny Ayers wrote: >> We explicitly know the “expected types” of properties, and I'd like to keep >> that information in a structured form rather than burying it in prose. As >> far as I can see, rdfs:range is the closest available term in W3C's data >> modeling toolkit, and it *is* correct as long as data publishers use the >> terms with the “expected type.” > > I don't think it is that close to "expected type"
I didn't say it's close to “expected type”. I said that we want to keep the information in a structured form, and that rdfs:range is the closest construct available in the W3C toolkit. > <#something> :hasColour <#wet> . > > then we get > > <#wet> a :Colour . If you apply RDFS/OWL reasoning to broken data, you get more broken data. I don't understand why anyone would be surprised by that. Best, Richard
