Re: Where I am about floats, etc.

Boris Motik wrote:
> Hello,
> I would just like to point out that OWL 1 explicitly required support of only strings and integers. Therefore, we should be able to
> not include xsd:float into OWL 2 without breaking backwards compatibility. I'd therefore interpret "silent" as meaning "we don't
> mention it in the list of the supported datatypes".
> We might want to specify what a tool should do if it encounters a datatype that it doesn't support. I believe that the only correct
> thing to do is to barf -- that is, to inform the user that the ontology contains an unsupported datatype and to refuse processing
> the ontology.

So we have to be *that* tough? My alternative was that the tool 
processes the ontology with the warning that the datatype related 
inferences might be incorrect...


> Regards,
>  Boris
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [] On Behalf Of Ivan Herman
>> Sent: 07 July 2008 08:19
>> To: Bijan Parsia
>> Cc: OWL Working Group WG
>> Subject: Re: Where I am about floats, etc.
>> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> [skip]
>>> 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...
>> Cheers
>> Ivan
>> --
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home:
>> PGP Key:
>> FOAF:


Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
PGP Key:

Received on Monday, 7 July 2008 08:43:21 UTC