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 09:03:05 -0800
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0902130903m5d164479k2382cae059f65e23@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org, debruijn@inf.unibz.it, bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 5:33 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
<pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
>> In order to keep the language consistent, I'd suggest changing this to
> Umm, how did language consistency get in here?

We use language to write specifications. I was referring to the
language in the spec :)

> 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

Even better! Sold.

Received on Friday, 13 February 2009 17:03:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:09 UTC