Re: layering (5.3, 5.10): Sardinia compromise?

Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
> Peter:
> [[[
> PS:  This *is* a serious response to Jeremy's proposal.
> 
> PPS: It *might* be possible to expand W to allow some RDF-related
> vocabulary, and thus place some restrictions on OWL entailment, but each
> expansion would require an analysis to ensure that no problems are
> introduced.
> ]]]
> 
> While Peter has taken it further than I had planned, it does reflect my
> intent that we could start with what we agree on, and then work up, rather
> than start where we disagree.
> 

Hopefully we can proceed on other than a triple by triple basis :-))

Jonathan