Re: Datatype disjointness implemented

On 16 Mar 2009, at 10:26, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> On 16 Mar 2009, at 08:58, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 4:50 AM, Bijan Parsia
>> <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> On 16 Mar 2009, at 06:52, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
[snip]

Sorry for being blunt and harsh. This clearly isn't the a productive  
way to move forward.

The key point is that there is no contradiction in the XML Schema spec  
and that talking about "copies" or "colorings" of the floats is a  
fairly standard and well understood way of describing the situation.  
There's no requirement that we further formalize them in a particular  
way (and there's a lot of choices in the matter) esp. if the details  
of that formalization (reduction, really) areintended to "leak", i.e.,  
be noticed by any user. From an OWL point of view, the only thing that  
matters is the fact that they are isomorphic to a subset of the  
decimals/rationals but disjoint from them. This extends down model  
theoretically, not just entailmentwise. Whether the domain "really is"  
integers, or pairs of integers, or sets, or tagged pairs should not  
affect the number or shape of models (that is, they should be  
indistinguishable by the interpretation function). It does no harm to  
*conceptualize* them in a particular way (e.g., as pairs of a rational  
and a type) as long as one does think that irrelevant features of  
those pairs are noticed by the interpretation function or that,  
somehow, those features make other conceptualizations illegitimate.

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 01:43:20 UTC