Re: What happens when an ontology has data literals that are outside the range handled

I'm not sure about the procedure here because I'm not sure if this is  
in response to any LC comment (I lost track!). So, what I did for the  
moment is to add editorial comments suggesting the relevant rewordings.

W.r.t. the 2nd one (lexical values), the current wording includes "  
-- for example, very large integers (see Section 4 of the OWL 2  
Syntax specification [OWL 2 Specification])". Do we want to keep this?

Ian


On 13 Feb 2009, at 17:03, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> 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 Tuesday, 17 February 2009 17:10:09 UTC