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

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.

Thanks,
Alan