Difference between revisions of "WebSchemas/SchemaDotOrgMetaSchema"

From W3C Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(No difference)

Revision as of 14:12, 30 November 2012

This is an archived WebSchemas proposal MetaSchema schema for schema.org. See Proposals listing for more. Note: active schema.org development is now based at github

This is a proposal to add some meta-schema constructs into schema.org's vocabulary, to support sharing of currently-internal data structures.


Schema.org shares its basic data model with W3C RDF, but varies on a few details - see datamodel.html for more discussion.

There are a few cases where it would be useful within schema.org to talk about classes and properties as first class entities. In addition there are already undocumented properties 'schema.org/domain', 'schema.org/range' in use when sharing machine readable schemas in RDFa, e.g. schema_org_rdfa.html.

For implementation reasons, it is useful to have internal-to-schema.org names for 'Class' and 'Property', even though it is often more appropriate to use W3C's equivalent terms for wider data sharing.


  • Add a property to schema.org, 'rangeIncludes', which 'relates a property to a class that constitutes (one of) the expected type(s) for values of the property'.
  • Add a property to schema.org, 'domainIncludes', which 'relates a property to a class that is (one of) the type(s) the property is expected to be used on'.

These concepts allude to W3C RDFS notions of domain and range, but are importantly weaker. In earlier experimental RDFa/RDFS serializations, schema.org used 'schema.org/range' and 'schema.org/domain' as names for these concepts, but feedback suggests this is confusing. Here we use 'rangeIncludes', 'domainIncludes' instead.

For example, at the time of writing, the property 'activeIngredient' can be used with the classes 'DietarySupplement', 'Drug'. Since the schema.org 'house style' is to avoid adding unnecessary classes that exist only as vocabulary-structuring artifacts, we do not have a common parent type such as 'IngredientBearingEntity'. Further, since schema.org is under constant expansion, it might be misleading to use complex OWL assertions to say that values of activeIngredient will always come from the union of 'DietarySupplement' and 'Drug'; more expected types could be added at any time. The compromise design adopted by schema.org is to document weaker associations between types and properties, and to name these 'rangeIncludes', 'domainIncludes' to avoid confusion with the related concepts from RDFS and OWL.

  • Add a type to schema.org, 'Class', which corresponds to the type 'rdfs:Class' in W3C RDFS (and very loosely to owl:Class too, but without any commitment to Description Logic etc.).
  • Add a type to schema.org, 'Property', which corresponds to the type 'rdf:Property' in W3C RDFS.

These local aliases indicate the shared approach between schema.org and RDF, while allowing schema.org to document itself using a single flat namespace. For wider publication and integration of data, use of rdf:Property and rdfs:Class can also be used directly, e.g. see schema_org_rdfa.html.