Re: draft public comment for OWL last call from RIF

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.