- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:03:05 -0800
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org, debruijn@inf.unibz.it, bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 5:33 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote: >> In order to keep the language consistent, I'd suggest changing this to > > Umm, how did language consistency get in here? We use language to write specifications. I was referring to the language in the spec :) > if we want to be consistent with > Syntax, the wording should probably be something like: > > .... > must provide a means to determine the datatypes supported by its > datatype map, and any limits it has on datatype lexical > 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 datatype lexical values that exceed any limits it > has on datatype lexical values Even better! Sold. Thanks, Alan
Received on Friday, 13 February 2009 17:03:57 UTC