- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 05:18:14 -0400
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
> 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. Hi Bijan, I want there to be an explicit treatment of this in our specification. I'll note that there are other comments that seem to ask for this level of concern - for example Boris recent note on datetime makes reference to Xpath functions on dates that aren't applicable to OWL as we don't specify their behavior. Or consider the care in defining the value space of rdf:text. Moreover while I agree that there are a number of ways to define the value space such that disjointness is achieved, and that within certain circles this is well understood, experience discussing this with a number of colleagues confirms that it can not be assumed that the average reader will read the XML schema specification with the level of sophistication that you do. Therefore I consider it appropriate to have this specified. I take your point about not wanting to commit to a particular value space if it is not necessary, and if there is a way to have a normative specification that avoids doing so then I'm interested in having a look. I'd rather not go back and forth repeating what we've said again. I believe that I understood what you were saying the first time you said it, and I simply disagree with you that it need not be specified in a clearer way. Regards, Alan > 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 Wednesday, 18 March 2009 09:18:50 UTC