- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 23:05:53 +0000
- To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 12 Feb 2009, at 22:43, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > To where can I point Jos to in our spec that defines this behavior? ? We don't define the behavior I described. We say that implementations must support at least 16 digits. If they don't support more we are silent on what they should do. I described two possibilities. > The reason I ask is that in some cases the XML docs say operations > involving such literals are implementation specific. Well we don't say what non-conforming implementation should do. If an implementation supports on 16 digits that doesn't license it to do what it wants with 17 digit numbers. It can, of course, do what it wants, but that behavior wouldn't be conforming. > I contended that > that would not be the case for OWL but didn't find a place that said > this explicitly. I don't know that there is. We're nowhere nearly as rigid about conformance as I would, ideally, like. But that's probably poltico- socially wise. I think at the moment the advice I'd give users is that if an implementation doesn't do static and dynamic analysis to determine if it's overflowed and throw *at least* a warning, that they complain about the implementation saying, "You claim to handle only 16 digits, but you really handle more, just not in conformance with the spec, loser" Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 23:06:29 UTC