Re: rdf:list vocabulary

Wouldn't that affect backward compatibility? What would happen to 
existing OWL1 ontologies serialized in RDF?

Ivan

Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> 
> I'm wondering whether we should consider removing our reliance on 
> rdf:list vocabulary for the serialization of OWL and instead make it 
> available for modeling in OWL. This would enable a class of RDF that is 
> currently inaccessible for reasoning in OWL to be productively used. The 
> downside is that we lose some the (relative) conciseness of using 
> rdf:parsetype=collection in our RDF serializations.
> 
> Given the choice of making the RDF more compact, versus making more 
> native RDF possible to reason over using OWL, I think I'd lean to the 
> latter. After all, we will have the OWL XML syntax if length of 
> serialization is our primary concern.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> -Alan
> 
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf