- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:43:51 +0100
- To: Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
On Jul 9, 2008, at 3:22 PM, Evan Wallace wrote: > Let me go on record as opposing proposals that simple gloss over > the peculiarities of > float and double and treat them as reals (thus I am agreeing with > Bijan's and Michael Smith's > positions). I would vastly prefer that we define our own real type > and use some explicit > type coercion to compare values across these and other datatypes. > -Evan Hi Evan, I think this is a reasonable position to take. I don't think it would effect my suggestion for defining the value spaces in OWL, nor the abandoning the assumption that a certain lexical type is uniquely associated with a specific value space. Under Boris proposal, the modification would be to have a type like Integer, which is a subset of real, in this case, new types owl:Float and owl:Double. However, given that it has been expressed that this requires some work by developers, would it be possible to give us a case from your domain in which you would like OWL to behave differently when using a float value space as compared to a real value space? -Alan
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 14:44:37 UTC