- From: Patrick J Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 10:08:12 -0600
- To: Bijan Parsia <bijan.parsia@manchester.ac.uk>
- CC: "Jerven.Bolleman@sib.swiss" <Jerven.Bolleman@sib.swiss>, "public-owl-comments@w3.org" <public-owl-comments@w3.org>, "public-owl-dev@w3.org" <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
Why on earth not? You are basically saying that it is not a good idea to document them. At the least, there could be an explanatory text in the form of a comment which conveys the intended meaning and usage. Pat > On Jan 16, 2020, at 3:58 AM, Bijan Parsia <bijan.parsia@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > > I don’t think it was an oversight per se. I certainly didn’t think making them resolvable was a good idea. > >> On Jan 16, 2020, at 09:53, Jerven Tjalling Bolleman <Jerven.Bolleman@sib.swiss> wrote: >> >> Dear OWL community, >> >> I just noticed that the two new datatypes introduced into OWL2 real and rational are not resolvable. >> >> i.e. www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#rational does not exist >> >> Was this an oversight when updating that file during the OWL2 work? >> The datatypes are mentioned in https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/#Real_Numbers.2C_Decimal_Numbers.2C_and_Integers >> >> Regards, >> Jerven >> >> >> -- >> Jerven Tjalling Bolleman >> SIB | Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics >> CMU - 1, rue Michel Servet - 1211 Geneva 4 >> t: +41 22 379 58 85 - f: +41 22 379 58 58 >> Jerven.Bolleman@sib.swiss - http://www.sib.swiss >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2020 16:08:24 UTC