- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:48:36 +0100
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- CC: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Dave Reynolds wrote: > 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 On more reflection ... for OWL the current definition is not meaningless because they have owl:rational and so owl:real includes those as well as xsd:decimal. For us, not having owl:rational makes owl:real with the current definition fairly useless. Dave -- Hewlett-Packard Limited Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Friday, 17 April 2009 07:49:28 UTC