- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 07:27:58 -0500 (EST)
- To: ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
The problem here is in the structural specification, i.e., the diagrams. There has been a change in Section 2.1 of SS&FS to partly alleviate the issue: If o1 and o2 are atomic values, such as strings, integers, or IRI (URI), they are structurally equivalent if they are equal using equality for their atomic type, i.e., they are the same string, integer, or IRI. However, the underlying type used throughout the diagrams for IRIs is string, not IRI, leading to the conclusion that the values are strings and that string equality is to be used. peter From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk> Subject: Re: ISSUE-49 (structural IRIs): REPORTED: structural specification should use IRIs, not strings Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 19:55:05 +0000 > > Seems to me that this has been addressed by the use of CURIES > (ISSUE-14) and the fact that Section 2.2 [1] now says: > > The syntax of full and abbreviated IRIs in OWL 1.1 is defined as > follows. > > Full-IRI := '<' IRI as defined in [RFC-3987] '>' > Abbreviated-IRI := curie > URI := Full-IRI | Abbreviated-IRI > > Unless I hear to the contrary I will close this issue as RESOLVED. > > Ian > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#URIs.2C_Namespaces. > 2C_and_Integers >
Received on Sunday, 2 December 2007 12:45:13 UTC