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

On 7 Nov 2008, at 19:15, Boris Motik wrote:

> Yes, you're right. I'm sorry - I got confused. I've now reverted  
> the spec into the original condition. While doing this, I've just
> noticed that we haven't defined the relationship between -0 and  
> +INF and -INF. Therefore, I've added the following condition:
>
> * -INF < -0 < +INF

Ah! Good catch.

I've added:

Note that ''+0"" is a real number and thus covered by the first clause.

In order to avoid future confusion.

In the example about equality and identity, wouldn't it be helpful to  
extend the example to include, say, a universal restriction on  
a:numberOfChildren to be min/maxInclusive +0. This would show that -0  
and +0 were equal?

Cheers,
Bijan.