Additional validation rule: compliance with 'membership predicate' about ukl-registry-poc HOT 2 CLOSED

You can't have it both ways :)

Either normal RDFS/OWL inference applies in which case the domain/rage declarations become additional inferred types of the register/entity; or there is some registry specific closed world assumption so that register/entities have to be explicitly declared with matching types.

from ukl-registry-poc.

I see your point; I asked to have cake and eat.

My rationale was along the lines of "if the membership predicate is set, we can use this for extra validation" ...

However, I think that given your point, it makes more sense to use the membership predicate as additional inference; e.g. if I use the reg:inverseMembershipPredicate 'skos:inScheme' then we can infer that the register is a skos:ConceptScheme.

Best we stick to 'normal' RDFS/OWL inference; too many application specific assumptions will damage the flexibility we've built into the system.

'additional validation rule' proposal DISCARDED.

Thanks!

from ukl-registry-poc.