[PaulHoule]

Not really.

The real ideology behind the semantic web is that you can use something like RDFS to rewrite the vocabulary somebody else uses to what you want... Except there are a number of reasons why you can't, for instance it is reasonable to write

  :Today :temperatureInCentigrade 28.8 .

but maybe you want to query

  :Today :temperatureInFahrenheit 84.0 .

The production rule to convert one to another is pretty simple, and you can implement it with SPIN, but not RDFS or OWL. Similarly there are data formats that organize a tree-like structure in an arbitrary way and to convert one to another you have to match a graph pattern to a graph pattern not a predicate to a predicate.

The whole fun of RDF is it is a clean basis to build your own data model. Want to add some kind of reification? Just add properties to triples.

I look at the OMG standards for an example where broken standards are par for the course because a few organizations fix the standards and can build proprietary tools on them. For instance the claimed reason why EMOF exists is that you could bootstrap UML 2 from it. It's not quite possible because the standard is broken. I'm pretty sure you can fix a few small things with EMOF and get it to work but it's not accidental it all it doesn't work out of the box.

The semweb community is absolutely sick of the standards process which is one more reason why broken things don't get fixed.