[Bug 16] New: foaf:mbox is undersconstrained (no domain, range)
danbri at w3.org
Tue Aug 12 08:27:33 UTC 2003
I've opened a bug re foaf:mbox definition in the RDFS.
I propose that we can close this pretty swiftly, with rdfs:domain of
foaf:Agent, rdfs:range of rdfs:Resource, plus a note in the
documentation to reflect that we may clarify the rdfs:range at a later
date once we've identified a suitable (probably non-FOAF) vocabulary
that provides a notion of "Internet Mailbox". I don't propose adding a class
foaf:InternetMailbox at this time; that'd much better sit in a separate
vocab that tackled mailboxes, mail headers and suchlike.
Any objections? If I hear none by thurs, I'll make the change.
----- Forwarded message from bugzilla-daemon at vapours.rdfweb.org -----
From: bugzilla-daemon at vapours.rdfweb.org
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:21:48 +0100
To: danbri at rdfweb.org
Cc: rdfweb-issue-archive at vapours.rdfweb.org
Subject: [Bug 16] New: foaf:mbox is undersconstrained (no domain, range)
Message-Id: <E19mUPc-0007cD-00 at vapours.rdfweb.org>
Summary: foaf:mbox is undersconstrained (no domain, range)
Product: xmlns.com vocabs
Component: FOAF vocabulary
AssignedTo: danbri at rdfweb.org
ReportedBy: danbri at rdfweb.org
The semantics of foaf:mbox property is under constrained in our current RDFS
Compare with foaf:mbox_sha1sum, which has rdfs:domain of foaf:Agent and range of
We should probably tighten foaf:mbox to have rdfs:domain and rdfs:range
rdfs:Resource (since we don't currently have a class for modeling mailboxes).
Alternatively, we could find someone else's RDFS vocab for mailboxes and use
that for rdfs:range. This could be added later with little damage, since all
foaf:mbox values _will_ be mailboxes, even if we don't yet say that in the
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
----- End forwarded message -----
More information about the foaf-dev