> On 4 Jul 2018, at 11:54, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) <[email protected]> wrote: > > So, to be sure (100-harmless), I could use even a subset of RDFS (“RDFS-“) > without domain & range for sharing the vocabulary. > Domain and range can come in at SHACL.
Again, this is subjective, but I think that’s a reasonable approach. > ‘RDFS-‘ would then be simply: > - rdfs:Class Yes > - rdfs:Property It’s actually rdf:Property > - rdfs:Datatype Rarely needed in vocabularies > - rdfs:subClassOf Yes > - rdfs:subPropertyOf Maybe — I try to model without it when possible, just to keep things simpler > - meta-stuff like: rdfs:label / rdfs:comment /rdfs:seeAlso / rdfs:isDefinedBy Yes, especially label and comment. The other two are used so inconsistently “in the wild” that I don’t see much value in their inclusion, but no harm either. Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Suite Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
