Closed swartik closed 4 days ago
When I tested the solution of modifying the range, I only used 5.6, but I'm inclined to just drop the range altogether now. Thoughts @neilotte @johnbeve @mark-jensen ?
This touches on a difficult to identify boundary between the representational space of ontologies and the lexical one that our data lives in. I am skeptical that a mid-level ontology is the appropriate place to enforce that boundary. It seems to me that the particulars of more highly restricted data properties should be left to domain extensions and application-specific ontologies. I know @alanruttenberg has some thoughts on this, which are compelling to me.
A broader discussion is required.
In the short run, if the more restrictive range is causing problems, then I say drop the range all-together for the time being.
The recent change to the range of
has_text_value
that adds rdf:langString causes Protege 5.5 to fail when parsing InformationEntityOntology.ttl. Because not everyone has switched to 5.6, I recommend modifying README.md. Replace the sentence:with: