W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: ISSUE-121 (RDFS-based OWL 2 DL): Do we want/need an OWL 2 DL language, which is based on RDFS semantics?

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:40:10 -0400
Message-Id: <E0B2E79C-4525-41E9-9011-FFBA5261190E@gmail.com>
Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>

Hi,
Just a reminder that as these issues have not as yet accepted, please  
hold discussion for the moment.
Thanks,
Alan

On Apr 21, 2008, at 8:14 AM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>
> OWL Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> ISSUE-121 (RDFS-based OWL 2 DL): Do we want/need an OWL 2 DL  
>> language, which is based on RDFS semantics?
>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/
>
> My take is that this is a legitimate issue, and that to explicitly  
> drop this as a design goal would simplify the task of having a full  
> semantics without any great loss.
>
> Jeremy
>
Received on Monday, 21 April 2008 14:41:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 21 April 2008 14:41:11 GMT