owl:ObjectProperty vs owl:DatatypeProperty, rather than rdf:Property

[VladimirAlexiev]

https://gist.github.com/VladimirAlexiev/618a9bddd6a949b75b37e983f0220417#props

schema.org uses rdf:Property because almost all of its props allow literal (text) in addition to object. However, UNCEFACT seems to be strict in following a "property dichotomy", so use owl:ObjectProperty (797, see below) vs owl:DatatypeProperty (950).

range	c	comment
xsd:string	791	all literals
xsd:token	159	identifiers, all end in Id
uncefact:	797	uncefact classes (object props)

[nissimsan]

@Fak3, would you give this a think, pls?

[Fak3]

Yes, it makes sense, so we can use those more specific properties.

But as a side note, maybe one day we would want to introduce such flexible Datatype-or-Relation properties? We can keep in mind that as an option and collect pros\cons of doing so.

[VladimirAlexiev]

55 asks to promote some data props (IDs) to object props (URLs)

[nissimsan]

@Fak3 , would you mind taking a closer look at this, pls?

[nissimsan]

@VladimirAlexiev , it's confusing what you mean "owl:ObjectProperty (797, see below) vs owl:DatatypeProperty (950)" - which one should replace rdf:Property?

[nissimsan]

We did this.