Expected rdfs:domain for the pimspace storage property

[csarven]

re: http://www.w3.org/ns/pim/space

ws:storage     a rdf:Property;
     :comment "The storage in which this workspace is";
     :label "storage";
     :range ws:Storage;
     owl:inverse  [
         :label "workspace included" ] .

To me that seems like the rdfs:domain of ws:storage should be ws:Workspace, and used like this, e.g:

<http://example.org/workspace/>
    a ws:Workspace ;
    ws:storage <http://example.org/> .
<http://example.org/> a ws:Storage .

However, all the uses that I've come across attach it to foaf:Agent, e.g:

<http://csarven.ca/#i>
    a foaf:Agent ;
    ws:storage <http://example.org/workspace/> .
<http://example.org/workspace/>
    a ws:Workspace .

@timbl @deiu The wording in the rdfs:comment is throwing me off, would you mind clarifying. I don't see how it should be an agent's property. There is no rdfs:domain defined for the property so, in practice anything can go in there but, what was the original intention?

[csarven]

It makes sense to use ws:storage on the agent of course. I think the ws:storage rdfs:comment needs a revision e.g: rdfs:comment "a resource's storage" or more restrictive rdfs:comment "an agent's storage".

And perhaps create a new property which can be used by workspaces along the lines of inStorage:

<http://example.org/workspace/>
    a ws:Workspace ;
    ws:inStorage <http://example.org/> .
<http://example.org/> a ws:Storage .

ws:inStorage a rdf:Property ;
    :label "in storage" ;
    :comment "a resource, e.g., workspace, container, that is part of a storage" ;
    :range ws:Storage .

Currently, by looking at a workspace, we don't necessarily know in which storage it is in without having to arbitrarily derive it from the workspace URI.

[csarven]

Related to ws:inStorage see also: #5 which proposes a possible good practice which would allow the possibility of having different workspaces in different storages, especially when users may have multiple storages.

[csarven]

Oh hey Sarven, you resolved this 6 years later in #50 by clarifying the comment.