- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 19:39:25 +0000
- To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 7 Nov 2008, at 19:15, Boris Motik wrote: > 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 Ah! Good catch. I've added: Note that ''+0"" is a real number and thus covered by the first clause. In order to avoid future confusion. In the example about equality and identity, wouldn't it be helpful to extend the example to include, say, a universal restriction on a:numberOfChildren to be min/maxInclusive +0. This would show that -0 and +0 were equal? Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Friday, 7 November 2008 19:36:37 UTC