Re: observation on owl:real

Axel Polleres wrote:
> Since owl:real is disjoint from float and double, it appears that the 
> lexical space for owl:real, i.e. those owl:real values lexically 
> expressible in RIF, actually just conincides with that of xs:decimal.
> 
> So, one could say the lexical space of owl:real is the same as the one 
> for xs:decimal?
> 
> Given that, I kind of fail to see the need for owl:real at all for our 
> purposes... resp., I fail to see where it would NOT coincide with 
> xs:decimal.
> 
> Opinions?

This seems like a bug in the OWL specs.

I had assumed that owl:real would be redefined to be the union of float, 
double and decimal (perhaps better named owl:number).

Since, as you say, they have actually defined it as disjoint with float 
and double I agree it serves no purpose and should be dropped.

Dave
-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England