- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:51:20 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
On July 1, Dan Connolly writes: > > Hmm... I gather Peter is travelling. > > Meanwhile, I'd be interested to know if anybody > else agrees or disagrees that this is an improvement... > > On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 09:37, Dan Connolly wrote: > > Prompted by Martin's I18N questions, I found... > > > > "OWL tools need only implement the datatypes xsd:integer and > > xsd:string." > > -- > > http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/syntax.html#owl_built_in_datatypes > > > > What's an "OWL tool"? Let's specify the language > > without reference to software. > > > > In 3.1. Vocabularies and Interpretations, > > please change the defintion of datatype theory > > and/or Abstract OWL interpretation so that > > integer and string have to be included in the > > set of datatypes for every Abstract OWL interpretation. > > > > And change OWL interpretation in 5.2. OWL Interpretations > > likewise. > > > > Then strike the "OWL tools..." bit in > > section 2. Abstract Syntax. I agree that this approach would be an improvement. Ian > > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ > >
Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2003 10:49:20 UTC