- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:33:36 +0000
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Bernardo Cuenca Grau" <bcuencagrau@googlemail.com>, "Mike Smith" <msmith@clarkparsia.com>, "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>, "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 11 Nov 2008, at 23:21, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Ian Horrocks > <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote: >> On 5 Nov 2008, at 17:47, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > >>> "for example, very large integers". Do we not need a summary of what >>> minimal conformance for literals are? >> >> I added a pointer to the datatype map spec in syntax; I don't >> think that it >> is a good idea to either duplicate normative text or to fragment the >> normative description of the language any more than is absolutely >> necessary. > > I don't see that pointer - just a reference to the whole syntax > document. I'd like it if there were explicit mention that there exist > minimal conformance levels for these and as direct a link as possible > to where they are specified. I added the pointer in the section that talked about supported datatypes. I now added another pointer in Section 2.1.2 (Datatype Map Conformance). > >>> "must return Error if an input document uses datatypes that are not >>> supported by its datatype map or literals that it does not support >>> (for example, very large integers); and" >>> I wonder whether the appropriate response here is Unknown rather >>> than >>> Error. It seems rather like not having enough resources to evaluate >>> the check. >> >> Error seems right here; Error is also returned "if the computation >> fails, >> for example as a result of exceeding resource limits". > > This doesn't seem to be a case of exceeding resource limits. It's a > case of making a choice to not supporting what is otherwise valid OWL. > If tool claimed to support arbitrary precision integers and then > failed because it ran out of memory or when processing a million digit > integer then I would consider it a resource failure. If it doesn't > even try then I think it's clearly an unknown. Well, I would say that Error applies to any failure at the parsing stage. However, I would welcome opinions from other WG members. Ian > > -Alan
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 15:43:57 UTC