- From: Natasha Noy <noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:49:35 -0700
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
> Let me suggest that rather than say that something is "in OWL-Full", > it would be better to say that it is not in OWL-DL. That is, the > important negative aspect of the simple solution is that it puts one > OUTSIDE the DL subcase. This gets the key point across, and also I > think places the focus on what is going to be for many users the key > issue, which is whether or not the ontology will be rejected by > DL-restricted tools. Yes, I'll change that. In particular since, strictly speaking, saying that something is in "OWL Full" doesn't say much: an OWL DL ontology is also an OWL Full ontology. It's the "non DL" aspect that's the key here. Natasha
Received on Monday, 19 April 2004 15:52:35 UTC