W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > February 2009

Re: What happens when an ontology has data literals that are outside the range handled

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 01:35:06 -0800
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0902130135r386e6d69scdcdc1f5bf33e5bc@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, debruijn@inf.unibz.it, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>

Actually, on further read, I think we already have this case listed,
though I think the conformance document could use some slight edits.

We currently have:

2.2.1 Entailment Checker
....
must provide a means to determine the datatypes supported by its
datatype map, and any limits it has on datatype literals and datatype
values [OWL 2 Specification]  for example, by listing them in its
supporting documentation; and
...
Additionally, an OWL 2 entailment checker:
...
must return Error if an input document uses datatypes that are not
supported by its datatype map or literals that it does not support
(for example, very large integers)see Section 4 of the OWL 2 Syntax
specification [OWL 2 Specification]; and

In order to keep the language consistent, I'd suggest changing this to

....
must provide a means to determine the datatypes supported by its
datatype map, and any limits it has on datatype literals and datatype
values, for example by listing them in its supporting documentation --
see Section 4 of the OWL 2 Syntax specification [OWL 2 Specification];
and
...
Additionally, an OWL 2 entailment checker:
...
must return Error if an input document uses datatypes that are not
supported by its datatype map or literals that exceed any limits it
has on datatype literals or datatype values

-Alan
Received on Friday, 13 February 2009 09:35:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 13 February 2009 09:35:43 GMT