-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 25
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Use dcam:domainIncludes
and dcam:rangeIncludes
#119
Comments
Yep, I think this is very good. |
I fully support using The |
Hi. I'm open to using |
In some arenas, people use schema.org preferentially, because Google's crawlers and indexers do a better job with it than with some niche ontologies. In others, the niche ontologies are different enough from schema.org and important enough to the content that people avoid schema.org and use other (S)SEO methods. Moderately good reasoners shouldn't care which you use, if you've included relations (a bridge ontology) between your niche ontology/ies and such "general purpose" ontologies as schema.org. All that said — my argument for including the |
So we just include |
Hiya @TallTed - yeah, the gist community switched their namespace IRI to use the w3id.org PURL service (to avoid the 'lock-in' associated with the domain And so, although they don't (yet!) provide a HTML page per ontology term, the And just by the way, but I've no issue with DPV including (And also, just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that DPV should use the |
Currently, DPV leaves its properties without a domain or range to enable use where relevant even if we know there are specific intended concepts. To indicate what we know as the possible domain and range concepts, we should use
dcam:domainIncludes
anddcam:rangeIncludes
with these concepts so that there is some guidance on where a given property is applicable. DCMI defines these concepts as a suggested class - so there is no strictness involved or inference/reasoning implications.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: