Re: typo in OWL 2 structural specification, not semantics.

On 7 Nov 2008, at 18:55, Boris Motik wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Strictly speaking, this wasn’t a typo because -0 is equal +0. I can  
> see, however, that this can confuse people, so I’ve therefore  
> changed the document as you’ve suggested.
>
> Thanks for this comment!

Actually, I think this is a bit misleading and may even change the  
meaning.

+0 is a real, thus covered by the first clause (we should switch  
these to an ordered list).

-0 is *not* a real (though it is equal to a real), so, just like -INF  
and +INF needs an additional clause.

(At the moment, I don't see a hook up between = and <. As far as I  
can tell, it's possible for -0 = +0 *and* -0 < +0. Indeed, if you  
change the definition to +0, then I would say that -0 is not < than  
any other element in realPlus and vice versa.)

For example, with this change, I believe your example no longer  
holds. I.e., from that definition -1 and 1 only have +0 between them.

Cheers,
Bijan.