- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:08:32 +0100
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- CC: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Bijan Parsia wrote: > On 17 Apr 2009, at 08:41, Dave Reynolds wrote: > >> Axel Polleres wrote: >>> Since owl:real is disjoint from float and double, it appears that the >>> lexical space for owl:real, i.e. those owl:real values lexically >>> expressible in RIF, actually just conincides with that of xs:decimal. >>> So, one could say the lexical space of owl:real is the same as the >>> one for xs:decimal? >>> Given that, I kind of fail to see the need for owl:real at all for >>> our purposes... resp., I fail to see where it would NOT coincide with >>> xs:decimal. >>> Opinions? >> >> This seems like a bug in the OWL specs. > > It's not. Fair enough. >> I had assumed that owl:real would be redefined to be the union of >> float, double and decimal (perhaps better named owl:number). > > That isn't actually a helpful type. It would have potential uses within RIF (gives a name to things that count as numerics for xpath) and was given as one argument why RIF should adopt owl:real. > First, we have owl:rational -- owl:real roots rational which is a > supertype of decimal. Agreed. I pointed this out in my follow up message. > Second, a key point of owl:real is to provide values which are the > solutions of equations. We don't need lexical forms for irrationals or > even transcendentals in order to be sensitive to them. It's easy to > build polynomials with rational coefficients which have solutions only > in the irrationals, and are thus unsatisfiable in the rationals or the > decimals. These are not expressible in RIF, the RIF arithmetic operators are derived from xf&o and inherit the xf&o restrictions on datatypes of arguments and results. >> Since, as you say, they have actually defined it as disjoint with >> float and double I agree it serves no purpose and should be dropped. > > I rather suspect the situation is quite different for RIF as the kinds > of equations use very different operators, by and large. (And OWL gets > access to them via OWL-Rule combinations). Quite. Cheers, Dave -- Hewlett-Packard Limited Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Friday, 17 April 2009 10:09:28 UTC