Missing domain and range attributes in the MeSH ontology/vocabulary?

[doogyb]

The Concepts documentation provides the following table for the relationships between the meshv:Concept class and other classes:

	Subject	Predicate	Object
1	meshv:Concept	meshv:broaderConcept	meshv:Concept
2	meshv:Concept	meshv:narrowerConcept	meshv:Concept
3	meshv:Concept	meshv:preferredTerm	meshv:Term
4	meshv:Concept	meshv:term	meshv:Term
5	meshv:Concept	meshv:relatedConcept	meshv:Concept

However, in the vocabulary_1.0.0.ttl file provided, the relationships between meshv:Concept and meshv:Term are not covered.

If we add the following rdfs:domain attributes to meshv:preferredTerm

<http://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/vocab#preferredTerm> rdf:type :ObjectProperty ;

                                                 rdfs:label "preferredTerm" ;

                                                 rdfs:comment "Relates Concepts, Descriptors, Qualifiers or SupplementaryConceptRecords to Terms. Indicates that the Term is the preferred term for a Concept, Descriptor, Qualifier, or SupplementaryConceptRecord." ;

                                                 dct:description "Relates Concepts, Descriptors, Qualifiers or SupplementaryConceptRecords to Terms. Indicates that the Term is the preferred term for a Concept, Descriptor, Qualifier, or SupplementaryConceptRecord." ;

                                                 rdfs:subPropertyOf <http://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/vocab#term> ;

                                                 rdfs:domain <http://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/vocab#Concept> ;
                                                 rdfs:domain <http://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/vocab#Descriptor> ;
                                                 rdfs:domain <http://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/vocab#Qualifier> ;
                                                 rdfs:domain <http://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/vocab#SupplementaryConceptRecord> ;

                                                 rdfs:range <http://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/vocab#Term> .

Then the relationship on row 3 is covered (along with the other Subject/Object relationships described by meshv:preferredTerm).

This following visualisation might also help:

I'm wondering if this was intentional? If not, I'd be happy to open a PR and add these missing relationships to the ontology.