On 12 Jun 2011, at 18:34, Pat Hayes wrote: >>> What do we say when the range of a property is supposed to be, say, people, >>> but its considered OK to insert a string to stand in place of the person? >> >> Well, I can define a class that contains both people (in the foaf:Person >> sense) and names of people (that is, string literals). > > Of course. But you didn't, did you? You (that is, Schema.org) said that the > range of the property was one of these and NOT the other. Which is what I was > complaining about.
Where is it said that the range is one and not the other? Citing from the schema.rdfs.org FAQ [1], which has the same answer I gave earlier here in the thread: >> Q: Schema.org documentation explicitly say that you can use a text instead >> of a Thing/Person/other type, why is this not reflected in the RDFS? >> A: That's ok—we didn't say that schema:Thing is disjoint from literals, so >> you can use a string when the declared range is schema:Person. (We were >> tempted to add “xsd:string rdfs:subClassOf schema:Thing.” to capture this >> bit of the schema.org documentation, but narrowly decided against it.) So I think it's all ok. Best, Richard [1] http://schema.rdfs.org/faq.html
