Use sdo:rangeIncludes to guide expectations on properties

[dr-shorthair]

Many DCAT properties have (deliberately) un-constrained ranges - i.e. no rdfs:range. Nevertheless, there are many usage or scope notes recommending use of specified classes or types.

These recommendations could be captured more formally (though with no entailment penalty) using sdo:rangeIncludes. Perhaps we should add these as a kind of rich annotation?

Related to #119

[davebrowning]

Added to future work do to time constraints. If the benefit was high enough perhaps it could be done in 2019 (assuming the changes were only in the non-normative rdf representations.)

[andrea-perego]

@dr-shorthair , would you like to revive this issue?

[dr-shorthair]

Yeah - I think it would be smart. SDO has continued to be very relevant in this space.

[smrgeoinfo]

my only reservation would be the SDO guidance for sdo:rangeIncludes:

Values expected to be one of these types: sdo:Class
Used on these types: sdo:Property

I know those aren't binding in the rdf definitions....

[dr-shorthair]

Mashing up this rule with RDFS entailments would merely make the target class also a sub-class of sdo:Class. Harmless AFAICT.