Re: possible way forward on ISSUE-69 (1.1/Full punning) and ISSUE-72 (backwards comptability) from Peter F. Patel-Schneider on 2008-01-23 (public-owl-wg@w3.org from January 2008)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:38:46 -0500 (EST)
To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20080123.093846.259515978.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: possible way forward on ISSUE-69 (1.1/Full punning) and ISSUE-72 (backwards comptability)
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:01:23 +0000

> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> > OWL 1.0 DL is a sublanguage of OWL 1.0 Full so what changes here?
> 
> We could present OWL 1.1 very differently:
> 
> define OWL 1.1 Full, and then a large number of fragments including OWL DL.
> 
> Jeremy

We could, if we chose to.  This would be a large change from the
situation in OWL 1.0.

peter

Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 15:10:14 UTC