Re: draft public comment for OWL last call from RIF from Jos de Bruijn on 2009-01-23 (public-rif-wg@w3.org from January 2009)

From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:28:52 +0100
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4979E234.6070506@inf.unibz.it>

> One could make a better case that difference in the *semantics* of same
> named datatypes should be the same. But even there, OWL does *different
> things* with the datatypes (i.e., it treats them as constraints).

I don't see a strong case for that. I personally find it ridiculous if
in OWL
"1"^^xsd:int owl:sameAs "1"^^xsd:float
is a tautology, but in RIF
"1"^^xsd:int = "1"^^xsd:float
is inconsistent.


Best, Jos

Received on Friday, 23 January 2009 15:29:12 UTC