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

Re: draft public comment for OWL last call from RIF

From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:42:06 +0100
Message-ID: <4979E54E.6080603@inf.unibz.it>
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>

Bijan Parsia wrote:
> 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.

good, then we agree here :-)

> 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 :)

Sure, the operators are different, because the languages are different
in nature.

Best, Jos

> Cheers,
> Bijan.

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
  - Donald Foster

Received on Friday, 23 January 2009 15:42:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:54 UTC