- From: Michael Schneider <m_schnei@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:34:03 +0200
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org, bmotik@cs.man.ac.uk, phayes@ihmc.us
Hi, Bijan! Bijan Parsia wrote: > On 9 Aug 2007, at 12:59, Michael Schneider wrote: > > > This is an easy one to counter: This whole thread is about a > > proposed feature for OWL-1.1, which is planned to become the > > successor of OWL/DL. So I regard bringing OWL-Full or even other > > languages into play here as simply to be off-topic! :) > [snip] > > This is not quite correct, or at least overstrong. OWL 1.1 is indeed > centered on OWL DL but is an attempt to move toward a revision of > *OWL*. Thus the WG will take OWL 1.1 as an input, but, presumably, > work to flesh out other OWL Full aspects (punning is, in fact, a move > in this direction). Alright, this is what I wanted to know. I was just about starting another thread here called "What happens to OWL-Full?", but this is not necessary anymore. I will wait and see, what is going to happen. (And will then probably have a few more annoying questions again. ;-)) Thanks! Cheers, Michael -- Michael Schneider <m_schnei@gmx.de>
Received on Thursday, 9 August 2007 12:34:13 UTC