RE: do we really need two languages/levels? [Issue 5.2]

What I see happening here (which may be different from what's
actually happening) is that "lite" may be a euphemism for
the older, "Phase 1", "Phase 2" lingo of years ago. Phase 1
is where we built what we thought the customer wanted,
and Phase 2 is where we tossed all the tough, ugly stuff
once we finally knew what the customer really wanted.

There is value in iterative development to gain learning
experiences with new complexity. I assumed this was the intent
behind OWL-lite - to get something CORE up and running.

I share similar concerns along the lines of Dan's in having
two, distinct languages. Language subsets, when officiated,
tend to take on lives of there own and run unintended risks
of future divergence, as well as confusion & resource issues.

Before I get too wrapped-up on OWL language labels, I want
to understand the exact intent behind the different names
and see that intent clearly, if not painfully defined.

-- Stanton
   Department of Defense