RE: types of OWL

> 
> Re-reading your question, I guess you were looking for more details. I
> think the basic situation is that things from DL that aren't in Lite
> were taken out on the basis of their being known to be difficult to 
> implement. My understanding is that someone should be well on their way
> to implementing OWL Lite by studying the published DL literature, whereas
> complete reasoning with DL is more researchy...
> 

That's true, so see my earlier comment as complementing this one.

Jeremy