- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:40:10 -0400
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hi, Just a reminder that as these issues have not as yet accepted, please hold discussion for the moment. Thanks, Alan On Apr 21, 2008, at 8:14 AM, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > 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 14:41:10 UTC