Re: context & RDFS documentation (RDF vocabulary definitions)

Brian McBride said:
I'm afraid that suggesting replacement text which is just wrong, and you 
know to be wrong, isn't all that helpful.  Nor are the references to terms 
such as metaclasses, contexts, class names etc which are simply not part of 
RDFS .
Please bear in mind that we are trying to describe RDFS here, not something 
else you may have in mind.

I would like everyone to take note of the alternatives.
The statement I suggested re "context" is,
    "In different contexts, two classes may have exactly the same members and yet be different classes."
which is a true statement.
The statement which it is meant to replace is,
    "Two classes may have exactly the same members and yet be different classes."
which is a false statement, when referring to a single context.
The difference is in the relations between the class and all other classes which exist in the same context..

This context-dependence is a fact of reality, independent of whether "context" is part of the RDFS vocabulary or not.  I think it is counter-productive for RDFS to pretend that "context" does not exist, just because it's not in the current RDFS vocabulary. 

Let me tell you why I "come on so strong".  I have been studying knowledge representation for 30 years.  I designed the first version of the KR language 6 years ago.  In the last 6 years, I have refined the language as I applied it to many different domains.  During this process, I have solved many of the problems which RDF-interest is discussing today.
============ 
Dick McCullough 
knowledge := man do identify od existent done
knowledge haspart list of proposition