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: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:09:25 +0000
Message-Id: <6CFB6F62-1EAE-48FB-B200-900D99C91A9C@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org, debruijn@inf.unibz.it, bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
I'm not sure about the procedure here because I'm not sure if this is  
in response to any LC comment (I lost track!). So, what I did for the  
moment is to add editorial comments suggesting the relevant rewordings.

W.r.t. the 2nd one (lexical values), the current wording includes "  
-- for example, very large integers (see Section 4 of the OWL 2  
Syntax specification [OWL 2 Specification])". Do we want to keep this?

Ian


On 13 Feb 2009, at 17:03, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> 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
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2009 17:10:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 17 February 2009 17:10:11 GMT