Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Example why current RDF mapping for QCRs might hurt OWL-1.1-Full

Jim Hendler wrote:
> +1 to needing better discussion of reqs.  I don't however think there is 
> a hidden agenda, I think the agendas are clear -JH
> 

I didn't mean to suggest a hidden agenda in a negative way, more that 
each participant in the WG speaks with different end-users of OWL, (both 
directly and indirectly) who motivate us each to argue for what we argue 
for.

Then an issue that I might express as "OWL Full compatibility" is 
perhaps not entirely a technical issue, but more about supporting HP's 
customer base ... and equally what might be expressed as 'decidability' 
might actually be more about supporting certian bioscience customers.

i.e. we talk with our customers, we understand their needs in terms of 
our theoretical constructs, we then rearticulate those needs to the WG, 
but only in terms of the theoretical constructs, whereas the original 
customer requirements might be revealing

Jeremy