Re: RDF vocbulary compatibility

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: RDF vocbulary compatibility
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 15:49:32 +0100

> 
> Jeremy
> > I was unable to explain why 
> > the following RDF vocabulary is omitted from OWL Lite,
> ...
> > As far as I can see there is no reason (other than aesthetics),
> 
> Peter:
> > RDF containers are extraordinarily problematic.  Their intended meaning is
> > not compatible with their formal meaning.  My preference would be to remove
> > them from OWL entirely.
> 
> While I do not like, nor personally do I use, RDF containers :( ...
> 
> 
> The thing I find hard to justify is that I can build an equivalent vocabulary 
> within OWL Lite ... and that's fine, as long as it's not the one in the RDF 
> or RDFS namespace! The current text of AS&S blocks interoperation with 
> existing legacy while allowing new ontologies that suffer the same features.

Well actually you can't because the container vocabulary is infinite.  This
by itself is a good reason not to use RDF containers.

peter