OWL vocabularies can be strange and produce unexpected results unless great care is taken. It seems like reasoning won't be a common things to do with VRA, so relaxing some of the terms from OWL to RDFS and some of the RDFS to schema:(domain/range)Includes might help relax some of those concerns.
Including:
rdfs:Class instead of owl:Class
rdf:Property instead of owl:DatatypeProperty or owl:ObjectProperty
schema:domainIncludes instead of rdfs:domain
schema:rangeIncludes instead of rdfs:range
OTOH, these might still be OK for mapping VRA terms to Schema.org:
owl:equivalentClasss
owl:equivalentProperty
OWL vocabularies can be strange and produce unexpected results unless great care is taken. It seems like reasoning won't be a common things to do with VRA, so relaxing some of the terms from OWL to RDFS and some of the RDFS to schema:(domain/range)Includes might help relax some of those concerns.
Including: rdfs:Class instead of owl:Class rdf:Property instead of owl:DatatypeProperty or owl:ObjectProperty schema:domainIncludes instead of rdfs:domain schema:rangeIncludes instead of rdfs:range
OTOH, these might still be OK for mapping VRA terms to Schema.org: owl:equivalentClasss owl:equivalentProperty