Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] ISSUE-55 (owl:class)

For me at least, Michael's clear analysis shows why it was probably a 
mistake to introduce the two terms in OWL 1.0; and why OWL 1.0 could 
probably have done better to have only used rdfs:Class, and any usage of 
rdfs:Class which did not work with the DL view of owl:Class would 
necessarily force the ontology into OWL full.

Hence the issue.

Jeremy