Re: draft response for JC2

On 15 May 2009, at 22:04, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> I'd leave out the part about empty lexical space.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#DTYPEINTERP says:
>
> "Formally, a datatype d is defined by three items:
> 1. a non-empty set of character strings called the lexical space of  
> d;"
>
> However Pat says that this was forced on him for a reason he can't
> remember and it is harmless to relax it.
>
> Or perhaps say that the status of empty lexical spaces is
> inconsistently documented and that in any case it doesn't cause harm.
> Not sure.

Or we could go with the definition that supports our interpretation  
(from the concepts document).

If we really wanted to, we could make the lexical space of owl:real an  
(unspecified) superset of owl:rational. That's, in effect, what we  
have anyway given the type relations.

I don't have a preference.

> You don't address the forward compatibility hook being bad issue that
> he raises. Not sure if it matters or not.

It was in my first draft. Peter pulled it on "less is more". I mean,  
JC just says "boo forward hooks". Not much to say to that. We can put  
it back in. I am, again, indifferent.

Cheers,
Bijan.