Re: Schema.org in RDF ... expected Types in RDFS

2011-06-04 Thread Thomas Bandholtz
Am 04.06.2011 17:35, schrieb Pat Hayes: > Far as I can see, one could simply delete every range-string triple. Nothing > would break in the RDFS by doing this, and AFIKS nothing is gained from > having these range assertions. Deleting every range assertion would not express what they want to sa

Re: Schema.org in RDF ...

2011-06-04 Thread Kingsley Idehen
On 6/3/11 10:26 PM, Brian Peterson wrote: Personally, I find Microdata more complex that RDFa, but only after understanding RDFa well enough to know how to make it simple. Ultimately it really doesn't matter. Don't be distracted by syntaxes for link based data representation. But Microdata

Re: Schema.org in RDF ...

2011-06-04 Thread Kingsley Idehen
On 6/3/11 10:06 PM, Michael Hausenblas wrote: http://schema.rdfs.org ... is now available - we're sorry for the delay ;) Cheers, Michael -- Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute NUIG - National University of

Re: Schema.org in RDF ...

2011-06-04 Thread Pat Hayes
Far as I can see, one could simply delete every range-string triple. Nothing would break in the RDFS by doing this, and AFIKS nothing is gained from having these range assertions. Pat On Jun 4, 2011, at 4:39 AM, Hugh Glaser wrote: > Sure does rock. > As you know, I never venture into ontology

Re: Schema.org in RDF ...

2011-06-04 Thread Michael Hausenblas
All, Thanks a lot for the comments we received so far, both here and (even more) off-list. Now, to make our life a bit easier, may I ask you to provide suggestions concerning the mapping (or feature requests alike) directly to the Github [1]? Of course, if you're more into it, feel free

Re: Schema.org in RDF ...

2011-06-04 Thread Thomas Bandholtz
http://schema.org/docs/gs.html#schemaorg_expected says: "When browsing the schema.org types, you will notice that many properties have "expected types". This means that the value of the property can itself be an embedded item (see section 1d: embedded items). But this is not a requirement—it's fine

Re: Schema.org in RDF ...

2011-06-04 Thread Hugh Glaser
Sure does rock. As you know, I never venture into ontology definition, to avoid displaying my ignorance, but now and then... :-) Suggestion: The RDFS will (I think!) perpetuate the classic problem (being a natural translation), in that there are lots of range strings. For example: schema:currenc