W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > January 2009

Re: draft public comment for OWL last call from RIF

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:39:51 +0000
Message-Id: <778579BF-EBFF-4404-8FBC-C34294911AAE@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>
To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>

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.
Received on Friday, 23 January 2009 15:36:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:00 GMT