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: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:33:31 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20090213.083331.237803631.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: alanruttenberg@gmail.com
Cc: ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org, debruijn@inf.unibz.it, bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk
From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: What happens when an ontology has data literals that are outside the range handled
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 01:35:06 -0800

> 
> 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

Umm, how did language consistency get in here?

> ....
> 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

Seems relatively benign.  However, if we want to be consistent with
Syntax, the wording should probably be something like:

....
must provide a means to determine the datatypes supported by its
datatype map, and any limits it has on datatype lexical
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 datatype lexical values that exceed any limits it
has on datatype lexical values

> -Alan

peter
Received on Friday, 13 February 2009 13:35:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 13 February 2009 13:35:12 GMT