Re: rdf:list vocabulary

Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> 
> On May 27, 2008, at 11:47 PM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> 
>> Wouldn't that affect backward compatibility? What would happen to 
>> existing OWL1 ontologies serialized in RDF?
> 
> The reverse mapping would have to be such that the rdf:list vocabulary 
> was mapped to the new vocabulary for OWL 1 ontologies.

I am not sure I understand. If a system sees an OWL ontology in RDF/XML 
or Turtle, how does it know whether an rdf:List is part of the syntax (a 
la OWL1) or part of the normal set of terms as you propose?

Ivan

> The question would be whether there were any ontologies that could 
> ambiguously be valid OWL 2 ontologies that used the rdf:list vocabulary 
> in axioms and at the same time be owl 1 ontologies that used the list 
> vocabulary as syntax.
> 
> -Alan
> 
>>
>> 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
> 

-- 

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