Chris Welty wrote: > > > Given ensuing discussion I am OK with this as the response to OWL: > > Dave Reynolds wrote: >> We have reviewed the OWL choices for the XML schema datatypes and have >> found them acceptable for RIF with one major exception, and some minor >> ones. >> >> Our primary concern is that we do not see how we can work with the >> redefinition of xsd numeric datatypes with overlapping (non-disjoint) >> value spaces. While we all agreed the idea of e.g. "1.0"^^xsd:double >> and "1"^^xsd:decimal being the same entity makes sense, RIF adds a set >> of builtin functions and predicates to its chosen xsd's and these are >> based on a wide implementation base that assume disjointness of xsd >> value spaces. Breaking these implementations would negatively impact >> interchange and significantly raise the "barrier to entry". >> >> Of lesser concern we do not see value for our user base in adopting >> owl:rational but note that is already At Risk in the current OWL2 >> drafts. We also do not see value in requiring support for the string >> subtypes xsd:normalizedString, xsd:token, xsd:Name, xsd:NCName and >> xsd:NMTOKEN. This last comment should be only about OWL 2 RL. We never discussed the datatypes in the overall OWL 2. > > -- Jos de Bruijn debruijn@inf.unibz.it +390471016224 http://www.debruijn.net/ ---------------------------------------------- No one who cannot rejoice in the discovery of his own mistakes deserves to be called a scholar. - Donald FosterReceived on Friday, 23 January 2009 10:17:29 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:54 UTC