W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > March 2003

RE: Datatypes - help please

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:47:47 -0500
Message-Id: <p05200f04baaa10caeee6@[10.0.1.4]>
To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

At 15:30 +0000 3/28/03, Ian Horrocks wrote:
>On March 27, Jeremy Carroll writes:
>>
>>
>>  Ian
>>
>>  I have largely gone with your wording - making one editorial change, and
>>  linking to the definition of datatype theory rather than the section
>>  containing the definition. In-line text is below.
>>
>>  There is also one other point that came up in discussion with Jos which is
>>  what change is needed in
>>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Mar/att-0083/M#runningCo
>>  nsistencyChecker
>>
>>  section 5.2
>>
>>  The current text with one addition **ed is:
>>  [[
>>  An OWL Lite consistency checker, when presented with a file from an OWL Lite
>>  consistency test, must output Consistent or Unknown.
>>
>>  An OWL DL consistency checker, when presented with a file from an OWL DL or
>>  OWL Lite consistency test, must output Consistent or Unknown.
>>
>>  An OWL Full consistency checker, when presented with a file from an OWL
>>  Full, OWL DL or OWL Lite consistency test, must output Consistent or
>>  Unknown.
>>
>>  The corresponding inconsistency tests must result in output of Inconsistent
>>  or Unknown **, as long as the datatypes required
>>  by the test are supported by the
>>  datatype theory of the consistency checker**.
>>
>>  A complete OWL Lite consistency checker or a complete OWL DL consistency
>>  checker should not return Unknown on the relevant consistency or
>>  inconsistency tests.
>>  ]]
>>
>>  Is that addition sufficient? Or do I need it also for the consistency tests.
>
>This is correct. Lack of support for a datatype will always result in
>more models, so if an ontology is consistent w.r.t. a datatype theory
>supporting all the relevant datatypes, then it is consistent w.r.t. a
>datatype theory supporting fewer datatypes.
>
>BTW, we didn't specify anything about what a datatype theory ought to
>say (e.g., it could map all integers to the same domain element). Do
>we want/need to say that datatype theories must be consistent with
>XMLSchema, or some such?

Good point - we certainly imply that numerous places in our other 
documents, adding something to this effect would be useful -- maybe 
we should say SHOULD be consistent with to allow a little leeway 
(that would address MIke's concern about bignums, for example)

>Ian


-- 
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/hendler
Received on Friday, 28 March 2003 09:48:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:58 GMT