Re: [OEP] "Classes as values" first draft

> Let me suggest that rather than say that something is "in OWL-Full", 
> it would be better to say that it is not in OWL-DL. That is, the 
> important negative aspect of the simple solution is that it puts one 
> OUTSIDE the DL subcase.  This gets the key point across, and also I 
> think places the focus on what is going to be for many users the key 
> issue, which is whether or not the ontology will be rejected by 
> DL-restricted tools.

Yes, I'll change that. In particular since, strictly speaking, saying 
that something is in "OWL Full" doesn't say much: an OWL DL ontology is 
also an OWL Full ontology. It's the "non DL" aspect that's the key 
here.

Natasha