VisualDataWeb
Inconsistent treatment of domain and range
WebVOWL currently treats domain classes in a different way than range classes. For the following example:
prefix : <https://example.com/>
:simple
rdfs:domain :From;
rdfs:range :To.
WebVOWL will display the :To class but not the :From class.
Expected: classes specified in domain and range to be treated/visualized in a similar way.
Workaround: add at least one statement about the :From class (e.g., :From a owl:Class).
It's okay, actually...
rdfs:domain a rdf:Property ;
rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> ;
rdfs:label "domain" ;
rdfs:comment "A domain of the subject property." ;
rdfs:range rdfs:Class ;
rdfs:domain rdf:Property.
from (http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#)
the rdfs:domain of rdfs:domain Property isn't defined as a rdfs:Class, but a rdf:Property. Otherwise, I guess, it wouldn't be able to state a Property that is it's own property as well. without having deadlocks of reasoning.
So, the Reasoning on WEBVOWL can't state :From as a rdfs:Class, but as a rdf:Property.
C ya, gl hf
@gabriellopes In my example, :simple is an instance of rdf:Property, while :From and :To are instances of rdfs:Class. The issue that I am reporting is that :To is displayed as a class (= correct), but :From is not (= incorrect).
@gabriellopes In my example,
:simpleis an instance ofrdf:Property, while:Fromand:Toare instances ofrdfs:Class. The issue that I am reporting is that:Tois displayed as a class (= correct), but:Fromis not (= incorrect).
Where did you state that :From and :To are both classes? Because I think if it depends on the reasoning for solving that, the reasoner is going to conclude that :From is a rdf:Property instead, as the expected object for rdfs:domain class as default is a rdf:Property.
gl
@gabriellopes I do not understand your remarks. :From and :To are clearly classes in my example. This is even stated in the snippet that you shared earlier (the rdfs:range of rdfs:domain is rdfs:Class).
