- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 21:06:11 +0000
- To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
I have finished working on these. I rolled in the comments coming out
of the F2F discussions and made various other small improvements.
The only thing left to do is to complete the responses to the queries
about datatypes at the end of JC1b. These is waiting for the decision
on disjointness that we are going to make this coming Wednesday. It
also isn't completely clear how to respond to the comments about
owl:real:
owl:real
A possible motivation for owl:real is to allow a property which
can be used with any numeric datatype. TopQuadrant customers have
such use cases, when merging data from various sources: however, the
use of a simple XSD union datatype is an alternative solution, which
we prefer.
owl:real
A possible motivation for use of owl:real is to permit
integration of numeric reasoning services in with ontological
reasoning services. While this may be useful for some Semantic Web
application, we do not find this to be useful for our business. We do
find it critical that numbers in semantic web applications
interoperate with numbers in databases, and with numbers in
programming languages. We hence suspect that this proposed change to
the semantics of datatypes in OWL is a further example of a clean
theoretical solution that does not make practical business sense. We
suggest that the value spaces of the XSD datatypes should remain
unchanged from OWL1.
We could simply responding that it is useful to have a single numeric
type that includes all the others and that the WG preferred owl:real
to using an XSD union datatype.
Ian
Received on Friday, 6 March 2009 21:06:56 UTC