- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 01:35:06 -0800
- To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, debruijn@inf.unibz.it, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Actually, on further read, I think we already have this case listed, though I think the conformance document could use some slight edits. We currently have: 2.2.1 Entailment Checker .... must provide a means to determine the datatypes supported by its datatype map, and any limits it has on datatype literals and datatype values [OWL 2 Specification] — for example, by listing them in its supporting documentation; and ... Additionally, an OWL 2 entailment checker: ... 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)—see Section 4 of the OWL 2 Syntax specification [OWL 2 Specification]; and In order to keep the language consistent, I'd suggest changing this to .... must provide a means to determine the datatypes supported by its datatype map, and any limits it has on datatype literals and datatype values, for example by listing them in its supporting documentation -- see Section 4 of the OWL 2 Syntax specification [OWL 2 Specification]; and ... Additionally, an OWL 2 entailment checker: ... must return Error if an input document uses datatypes that are not supported by its datatype map or literals that exceed any limits it has on datatype literals or datatype values -Alan
Received on Friday, 13 February 2009 09:35:42 UTC