In the RDF representation of CCCEV, the properties are specified with domain (rdfs:domain) and range (rdfs:range).
However, according to the SEMIC Style Guide Semantic Convention Rule SC-R2, "The formal ontology shall be lightweight ..." and "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 is better fulfilled by the data shapes expressed in SHACL language."
Questions: Why is it absolutely necessary to have (a) property domain specifications (rdfs:domain) and (b) property range specifications (rdfs:range) in the RDF representation of CCCEV? Could you please remove the domain and range specifications from the RDF representation, if it is not absolutely to have them there?
In the RDF representation of CCCEV, the properties are specified with domain (
rdfs:domain) and range (rdfs:range).However, according to the SEMIC Style Guide Semantic Convention Rule SC-R2, "The formal ontology shall be lightweight ..." and "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 is better fulfilled by the data shapes expressed in SHACL language."Questions: Why is it absolutely necessary to have (a) property domain specifications (
rdfs:domain) and (b) property range specifications (rdfs:range) in the RDF representation of CCCEV? Could you please remove the domain and range specifications from the RDF representation, if it is not absolutely to have them there?