At 18:02 +0000 3/7/03, Ian Horrocks wrote: >On March 7, Jim Hendler writes: >[snip >Because ALL datatypes/values are interpreted, an OWL reasoner MUST >"deal with" all datatypes. This isn't a big overhead because >unsupported datatypes can be treated in a uniform and very lightweight >manner. If a reasoner claims to support a given datatype, AND it >claims to be complete, then it has to do more work w.r.t. that >datatype (the MT formalises just what it has to do). yes, but remember that many of our readers won't know this, and thus I just want to make sure someone says it in novice-understandable form in our document. I did very much like what you wrote, wasn't being critical > >> but we need some decision on this > >The decision as to which datatypes (if any) MUST be supported by all >OWL reasoners is obviously one that has to be made by the working >group. My suggestion is that we make this a fairly short (possibly >zero length) list. actually, I think your ACTION item was to take a first stab at making a suggestion. If you want to suggest zero length, that woudl address your action. I probably prefer string and integer, but could live with none. Guus, can you make sure this goes on WG agenda to get resolved on 13th? cheers JH -- Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 240-731-3822 (Cell) http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendlerReceived on Friday, 7 March 2003 19:10:36 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:58 GMT