- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 22:22:04 +0100
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 15 May 2009, at 22:04, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > I'd leave out the part about empty lexical space. > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#DTYPEINTERP says: > > "Formally, a datatype d is defined by three items: > 1. a non-empty set of character strings called the lexical space of > d;" > > However Pat says that this was forced on him for a reason he can't > remember and it is harmless to relax it. > > Or perhaps say that the status of empty lexical spaces is > inconsistently documented and that in any case it doesn't cause harm. > Not sure. Or we could go with the definition that supports our interpretation (from the concepts document). If we really wanted to, we could make the lexical space of owl:real an (unspecified) superset of owl:rational. That's, in effect, what we have anyway given the type relations. I don't have a preference. > You don't address the forward compatibility hook being bad issue that > he raises. Not sure if it matters or not. It was in my first draft. Peter pulled it on "less is more". I mean, JC just says "boo forward hooks". Not much to say to that. We can put it back in. I am, again, indifferent. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Friday, 15 May 2009 21:22:40 UTC