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

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
>