Thanks for your reply. We are newly exploring Omeka S, and I would not class myself as an expert in linked data, so it’s helpful how you have highlighted areas where Omeka S is a bit lax in its implementation.
I don’t know whether you have any expertise in museum vocabularies? I opened a separate thread a few weeks ago under the topic Vocabulary for museum objects and you may be able to offer some advice. In our case we have identified a single vocabulary that looks good, but we would not want all of the classes to be visible as items for the user.
We are torn between implementing a vocabulary properly, respecting the domains and ranges, and just “making it work” with a cavalier attitude to properties and bending the rules.
If we want to be really strict and not misuse a vocabulary, ironically the easiest solution feels like just making up our own classes and properties to meet our needs. But then we would lose any possible advantages of linked data because no-one else would know what our data meant.