RE: rdf:list vocabulary

I just want to note that this topic is related to ISSUE-104 ("disallowed
vocabulary"), which will be discussed in today's telco.

I would expect that there exists some rational, why the custom use of
rdf:List related vocabulary was forbidden in OWL 1 DL [1].

Michael

[1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/mapping.html#4.2>

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
>On Behalf Of Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 11:37 AM
>To: alanruttenberg@gmail.com
>Cc: ivan@w3.org; public-owl-wg@w3.org
>Subject: Re: rdf:list vocabulary
>
>
>From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: rdf:list vocabulary
>Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 23:56:10 -0400
>
>> 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.
>> 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
>
>Yes, that is one of the questions involved.
>
>I await someone (else) showing that this is not a problem.
>
>peter
>
>> > 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