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

It came out of the discussion with Jos - he was the one that pointed
out the issue, so it could be part of the response to them re:
datatypes.
-Alan


On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Ian Horrocks
<ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> 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 Wednesday, 18 February 2009 16:07:35 UTC