Re: Where I am about floats, etc.

Bijan Parsia wrote:

> I think I'm specifically against including xsd:float and xsd:double as 
> types at all at this stage, and even as our specing them out as 
> optional. (We shouldn't forbid them; just be silent.)

I know this is a side issue compared to the main thrust of the 
discussion but I would still like to understand what 'non including' and 
'be silent' means in this case. What happens to legacy data?

My feeling is that being silent is not really possible. We should 
specify what happens if a tool gets an ontology/data that is perfectly 
o.k. in OWL2 DL or OWL2 EL++ but using, say, xsd:float (or other, non 
included XSD datatypes, for that matter): should we rule that the data 
is still o.k. in terms of, say, OWL2 EL++ with an additional warning 
that the reasoning on datatypes might be shaky, or would that data ruled 
to be incorrect and state it it OWL Full? I think something has to be 
said in the specification somewhere.

Personally, I would opt for the former, b.t.w., I suspect that there are 
already a bunch of OWL1 DL data out there and we would not want to 
refuse them from a DL point of view...

Bijan, how does Pellet treat such cases? I guess you have met this issue 
in practice...




Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
PGP Key:

Received on Monday, 7 July 2008 07:19:19 UTC