- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:09:25 +0000
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org, debruijn@inf.unibz.it, bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk
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