- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:03:57 +0000
- To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- 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>
On 23 Jan 2009, at 15:42, Jos de Bruijn wrote: > 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 :-) (Assuming that = and sameAs are the same :)) >> 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. Well, that is also a reason for owl to have rationals (and reals in general). We intend to support linear (and possibly non-linear) inequations (as constraints). If you don't support that, then rationals become less compelling and thus might yield to implementation considerations. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Friday, 23 January 2009 16:00:33 UTC