Re: draft response for LC comment 20 JDB1

My assessment was based on reading the current profiles document on the
wiki.-Alan

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk
> wrote:

> I'm not sure it's quite right to say that float an double are part of RL
> now. It seems sensible that they should be given the current positions of
> the interested parties. I put a proposal in this weeks agenda so we can
> record a formal resolution to this effect (i.e., that float an double are
> part of RL) just to be completely clear.
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> On 17 Mar 2009, at 04:42, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>
>  Ian points out, (and I just checked) that float an double are part of
>> RL now. So the section I was concerned about
>>
>> "Implementation difficulties have resulted in xsd:float and xsd:double
>> remaining out of OWL 2 RL.  If these difficulties can be overcome the
>> two datatypes may be included in OWL 2 RL.  If changes occurs the
>> working group will notify you."
>>
>> can just be omitted.
>>
>> -Alan
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>> <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure why this is relevant to the reply.  We have removed the
>>> incorrect rationale and extended the collection of OWL 2 RL datatypes,
>>> in response to the point brought up by Jos.
>>>
>>> However, if you have suggestions for changes to the wording of the
>>> reply, feel free to propose same.
>>>
>>> peter
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
>>> Subject: Re: draft response for LC comment 20 JDB1
>>> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:27:34 -0400
>>>
>>>  Hi Peter,
>>>>
>>>> I think a few words about, or pointer to a discussion of the
>>>> implementation issues that are relevant to OWL RL in this response
>>>> should be added.
>>>>
>>>> -Alan
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>>>> <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [Draft Response for LC Comment 20:] JDB1
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Jos,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your message
>>>>>  <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/
>>>>> 2009Jan/0022.html>
>>>>> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are correct that OWL 2 RL does not need the intersection of
>>>>> datatypes to be empty or infinite.  Accordingly the datatypes in OWL 2
>>>>> RL have been adjusted to include all the OWL datatypes that are
>>>>> restrictions of xsd:decimal and xsd:string and also xsd:boolean.
>>>>>
>>>>> In response to another comment
>>>>>  <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jan/0083.html>
>>>>> on the difficulty of implementing datatypes in rules systems,
>>>>> owl:real and owl:rational have been removed from OWL 2 RL.
>>>>> This possibility was mentioned in Feature At Risk #2.
>>>>>
>>>>> The diffs for these changes can be found at
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php
>>>>> ?title=Profiles&diff=18687&oldid=18109
>>>>>
>>>>> Implementation difficulties have resulted in xsd:float and xsd:double
>>>>> remaining out of OWL 2 RL.  If these difficulties can be overcome the
>>>>> two datatypes may be included in OWL 2 RL.  If changes occurs the
>>>>> working
>>>>> group will notify you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please acknowledge receipt of this email to
>>>>> <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should
>>>>> suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you
>>>>> are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>>>>> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>