Re: OWL DL and OWL Full

• From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
• Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:07:41 -0400 (EDT)
• To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
• Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
• Message-Id: <20071029.120741.135666546.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: OWL DL and OWL Full
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:06:30 +0000

[...]

> I suppose more seriously we probably all want to have press releases 
> that use "OWL" without qualification. This can be achieved either by:
> 
> - there being 'victory' for one side or the other, so that OWL is 
> unambiguous
> - there being interop between OWL DL and OWL Full, so that at the press 
> release level the distinctions are not too important.
>
> I have a strong preference for the latter.

But the latter is already the case.  Victory achieved!

> Jeremy

peter

Received on Monday, 29 October 2007 16:20:39 UTC