- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 14:16:48 -0500 (EST)
- To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
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
Received on Saturday, 8 February 2003 14:17:01 UTC