Re: draft public comment for OWL last call from RIF

On 23 Jan 2009, at 15:28, Jos de Bruijn wrote:

>> 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.

Jos, that is in the subset of the semantics where I think there could  
or should be harmonization.

If you note the example of the "semantic" divergence (which isn't  
really a difference in semantics but in the available operators...but  
presumably predicates and operators are very user visible aspects of  
the semantics), I didn't propose this one :)

Cheers,
Bijan.