W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: Clarification on owl:real sought

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 10:25:56 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20090108.102556.35890715.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: der@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org

From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: Clarification on owl:real sought
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:29:02 +0000

> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > Your analysis is correct.
> > Supporting owl:realPlus (to pick a slightly more interesting example)
> > means something like allowing ontologies like: DataProperty(ex:wealth)
> > SubClassOf(ex:Person AllValuesFrom(ex:wealth owl:real))
> 
> You mean owl:realPlus there right?

Ooops, right.

> > ClassAssertion(ex:Person ex:Steve)
> > ClassAssertion(ex:Person ex:Bill)
> > PropertyAssertion(ex:wealth ex:Brian "+10000000000000000000"^^xsd:integer)
> > PropertyAssertion(ex:wealth ex:Bill "+INF"^^xsd:float)
> > In the absence of real constants, it is indeed the case that owl:real is
> > going to act very much like owl:rational, as far as OWL itself is
> > concerned.  If owl:rational is removed then owl:real is going to act
> > very much like xsd:decimal.
> > Perhaps the main reason for owl:rational and owl:real is to allow for
> > extensions of OWL that provide relationships between values.
> 
> Got it, that makes sense.
> Thanks for your help.
> 
> Dave

You're welcome.

peter
Received on Thursday, 8 January 2009 15:25:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:56 GMT