search

SEMICeu / style-guide

SEMIC style guide to create reusable vocabularies and application profiles
https://semiceu.github.io/style-guide/
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
9 stars 2 forks source link

Domain & Range #60

Closed GeertThijs closed 1 year ago

GeertThijs commented 1 year ago

In § Fixed UML interpretation. Maybe explain why domain & range declarations are left out of the OWL ontology (and kept for the SHACL shapes). I agree with the idea but think it would be good to explain why (eg greater flexibility in choice of range when using the vocabulary for different application profiles).

costezki commented 1 year ago

No expressions of (a) property domain specification (rdfs:domain) and (b) property range specification (rdfs:range) shall be used unless justified as absolutely necessary. The need for setting property domain and range constraints shall be is better fulfilled by the data shapes expressed in SHACL language.

See: https://semiceu.github.io/style-guide/public-review/gc-semantic-conventions.html#sec:sc-r2

csnyulas commented 1 year ago

In fact, just below the paragraph quoted by @costezki above, there is another sentence that provides exactly the "why", which is the other topic of this issue: "Keeping the ontology lightweight allows the maximum freedom for reuse and does not interfere with the validation concerns covered by the data shapes."

I added some additional clarification note (see reference commit), to make the statements even more clear.