Re: comments on OWL test cases

ian:
> Under these circumstances I'm not sure that the paragraph
  my text
> is necessary - the semantics of datatype theories was carefully
> designed so that this kind of thing would NOT be necessary.

Hmm.
If that's the case then I suspect we will end up aborting the LC vote.
That understanding of datatyping gets into too many places for it to be simply 
an editorial action to fix it.

Can I ask a concrete question:
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByIssue#I5.8-003

_:a rdf:type owl:Restriction .
first:p rdf:type owl:DatatypeProperty .
first:p rdfs:range xsd:byte .
first:p rdfs:range xsd:unsignedInt .
_:a owl:onProperty first:p .
_:a owl:cardinality "129"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger  .
first:john rdf:type _:a .


this is inconsistent, but to know it you need to know about xsd:byte and 
xsd:unsignedInt and their relationship.

What should a complete OWL Consistency Checker that only knows about integer 
and string return?

My text says: Unknown
Without it I think we have to say: Consistent, despite the test case being 
inconsistent.

Jeremy