- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:58:26 +0100
- To: "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, "webont" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
> 1 - RDF Compatibility -- Jeremy Carroll, in [1] has proposed > reopening the issue as to what is and is not in OWL Lite -- in > particular with respect to some RDF constructs that were not > included. The decision as to what is in Lite was arrived at over > time and with great effort to reach consensus, and we do not wish to > reopen this issue at this time. (Discussed under issue 5.2, > resolutions at Bristol f2f [2]) > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Feb/0086.html > [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ftf4#Lite Further I note that at the time of the resolution [2] "to endorse the existing OWL Lite language subset", the only published WD that related OWL Lite to the use of RDF vocabulary: http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-owl-absyn-20020729/#7 which permits rdf:Bag, rdf:Seq, rdf:Alt, rdf:_1, rdf:_2 ... rdfs:isDefinedBy ... and so may I assume that the last call documents will similarly permit such vocabulary? Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2003 04:59:03 UTC