[related to ISSUE-121 ... sorry, Alan, but this mail should have been written *before* your request to not discuss raised issues, I simply overlooked Jeremy's mail! ;-)] Jeremy Carroll wrote: >Michael Schneider wrote: > >> The WG will have to decide whether we want to have such an "RDF style" >> OWL-DL clone or not in OWL 2. I cannot see a demand in the charter for >such >> a language. And I do not remember that there was any advocacy in the >WG or >> by someone else in favor for it (although I remember that there was >once a >> mail from a HP employee bringing this language into play). > >At a guess that was from David Turner, who was working for me >(temporarily). No, it was by one of the many other Davids at HP! :) <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Mar/0000.html> >Thus I feel free to remove any implicit HP support for >this language (OWL-DL, RDFS compatible). If it is helpful to have it >then so be it, if it is unhelpful then let's not. > >Jeremy Cheers, Michael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 April 2008 09:06:08 GMT