Re: Clarification on owl:real sought

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