Jim Hendler wrote: > [snip] > This could be simple to deal with - these omissions can be easily fixed > when a section on OWL 1.1 Full is added to the document > This could be a charter issue - since it very clearly contradicts the > charter [3] statement that > > "All new features should have a clear syntax, and a clear semantics both > in terms of OWL DL and OWL Full. The existing compatibility between OWL > DL and OWL Full should be preserved, and should be extended to new > features wherever possible." > Sigh (as one of the co-editors of the charter):-(. This was indeed an omission rather than anything else. I must admit that my mental 'model' at least was the current OWL document where, as far as I know, _all_ constructions are present both on DL and in Full, albeit with different and usually restricted usage in DL and with different semantics here and there. The alternative of having some features/constructions that are defined for OWL1.1 Full only and not defined _at all_ for DL simply did not come to my mind. (By pushing it a bit, zero semantics is also semantics, ie, if a feature has _no_ semantics on the DL level, that could be argued to fulfil the charter requirement... But I am only half serious:-) Ivan -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2007 15:28:39 UTC