RE: What do the ontologists want

..   
> 
> This is why I say that you cannot use RDF semantics when you have an
> encoding of more-expressive formalism.  There is no way (in RDF) to
> separate the triples that have direct semantic meaning from 
> those that need
> other treatment.

which is the argument for agreeing that RDF represents "just the graph,
and nothing but the graph" of binary relations between resources, and
semantic meaning will need to be borne by DAML/OIL/some other
multi-letter acronym not yet invented layer. If everyone could agree on
this, much of the debate going on here would disappear. An insistence on
ascribing a tremendous amount of semantics to lists of triples is what
keeps the debate going.


Cheers,

Ziv