- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:06:59 -0500
- To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org, debruijn@inf.unibz.it, bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk
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