incorrect use of rdfs:range
egonw opened this issue · comments
The current ontology ttl has multiple rdfs:range values for some datatype properties, like this one:
<rdf:Property rdf:about="http://vocabularies.wikipathways.org/wp#isAbout">
<rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://vocabularies.wikipathways.org/wp"/>
<rdfs:label>isAbout</rdfs:label>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://vocabularies.wikipathways.org/gpml#Pathway"/>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://vocabularies.wikipathways.org/gpml#DataNode"/>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://vocabularies.wikipathways.org/gpml#Interaction"/>
</rdf:Property>
However, the RDF Schema specification writes:
Where P has more than one rdfs:range property, then the resources denoted by
the objects of triples with predicate P are instances of *all* the classes stated by the
rdfs:range properties.
That means that anything using the wp:isAbout is Pathway, DataNode, and Interaction at the same time, which is likely impossible. Now, if it said "instance of any of the classes"...
Agreed. I didn't fix this yet, because I didn't know its provenance, but it
is wrong.
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Egon Willighagen notifications@github.com
wrote:
The current ontology ttl has multiple rdfs:range values for some datatype
properties, like this one:<rdf:Property rdf:about="http://vocabularies.wikipathways.org/wp#isAbout">
<rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://vocabularies.wikipathways.org/wp"/>
rdfs:labelisAbout/rdfs:label
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://vocabularies.wikipathways.org/gpml#Pathway"/>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://vocabularies.wikipathways.org/gpml#DataNode"/>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://vocabularies.wikipathways.org/gpml#Interaction"/>
/rdf:PropertyHowever, the RDF Schema specification writes:
Where P has more than one rdfs:range property, then the resources denoted by the objects of triples with predicate P are instances of all the classes stated by the rdfs:range properties.
That means that anything using the wp:isAbout is Pathway, DataNode, and
Interaction at the same time, which is likely impossible.—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#4.
The current ontology does not specify this range.