RE: Chairs' decisions about reopening some issues

> 1 - RDF Compatibility -- Jeremy Carroll, in [1] has proposed
> reopening the issue as to what is and is not in OWL Lite -- in
> particular with respect to some RDF constructs that were not
> included.  The decision as to what is in Lite was arrived at over
> time and with great effort to reach consensus, and we do not wish to
> reopen this issue at this time.  (Discussed under issue 5.2,
> resolutions at Bristol f2f [2])
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Feb/0086.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ftf4#Lite

Further I note that at the time of the resolution [2] "to endorse the
existing OWL Lite language subset", the only published WD that related OWL
Lite to the use of RDF vocabulary:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-owl-absyn-20020729/#7

which permits rdf:Bag, rdf:Seq, rdf:Alt, rdf:_1, rdf:_2 ...
rdfs:isDefinedBy ...

and so may I assume that the last call documents will similarly permit such
vocabulary?

Jeremy