RE: ACTION-93 / ISSUE-63: Initiated work on OWL-1.1-Full semantics

[related to ISSUE-121 ... sorry, Alan, but this mail should have been
written *before* your request to not discuss raised issues, I simply
overlooked Jeremy's mail! ;-)]

Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>Michael Schneider wrote:
>
>> The WG will have to decide whether we want to have such an "RDF style"
>> OWL-DL clone or not in OWL 2. I cannot see a demand in the charter for
>such
>> a language. And I do not remember that there was any advocacy in the
>WG or
>> by someone else in favor for it (although I remember that there was
>once a
>> mail from a HP employee bringing this language into play).
>
>At a guess that was from David Turner, who was working for me
>(temporarily).

No, it was by one of the many other Davids at HP! :)

  <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Mar/0000.html>

>Thus I feel free to remove any implicit HP support for
>this language (OWL-DL, RDFS compatible). If it is helpful to have it
>then so be it, if it is unhelpful then let's not.
>
>Jeremy

Cheers,
Michael