Re: ISSUE-121 (RDFS-based OWL 2 DL): Do we want/need an OWL 2 DL language, which is based on RDFS semantics? from Jeremy Carroll on 2008-04-21 (public-owl-wg@w3.org from April 2008)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:14:56 +0100
To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <480C8540.6000908@hpl.hp.com>

OWL Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> 
> ISSUE-121 (RDFS-based OWL 2 DL): Do we want/need an OWL 2 DL language, which is based on RDFS semantics?
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/

My take is that this is a legitimate issue, and that to explicitly drop 
this as a design goal would simplify the task of having a full semantics 
without any great loss.

Jeremy

Received on Monday, 21 April 2008 12:16:40 UTC