RE: typo in OWL 2 structural specification, not semantics.

Yes, you're right. I'm sorry - I got confused. I've now reverted the spec into the original condition. While doing this, I've just
noticed that we haven't defined the relationship between -0 and +INF and -INF. Therefore, I've added the following condition:

* -INF < -0 < +INF

Again, sorry for the confusion.

Regards,

	Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bijan Parsia [mailto:bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk]
> Sent: 07 November 2008 19:06
> To: Boris Motik
> Cc: 'Pat Hayes'; public-owl-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: typo in OWL 2 structural specification, not semantics.
> 
> On 7 Nov 2008, at 18:55, Boris Motik wrote:
> 
> > Hello,
> >
> > Strictly speaking, this wasn't a typo because -0 is equal +0. I can
> > see, however, that this can confuse people, so I've therefore
> > changed the document as you've suggested.
> >
> > Thanks for this comment!
> 
> Actually, I think this is a bit misleading and may even change the
> meaning.
> 
> +0 is a real, thus covered by the first clause (we should switch
> these to an ordered list).
> 
> -0 is *not* a real (though it is equal to a real), so, just like -INF
> and +INF needs an additional clause.
> 
> (At the moment, I don't see a hook up between = and <. As far as I
> can tell, it's possible for -0 = +0 *and* -0 < +0. Indeed, if you
> change the definition to +0, then I would say that -0 is not < than
> any other element in realPlus and vice versa.)
> 
> For example, with this change, I believe your example no longer
> holds. I.e., from that definition -1 and 1 only have +0 between them.
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan.

Received on Friday, 7 November 2008 19:16:21 UTC