Re: draft public comment for OWL last call from RIF

Chris Welty wrote:
> 
> 
> Given ensuing discussion I am OK with this as the response to OWL:
> 
> Dave Reynolds wrote:
>> We have reviewed the OWL choices for the XML schema datatypes and have
>> found them acceptable for RIF with one major exception, and some minor
>> ones.
>>
>> Our primary concern is that we do not see how we can work with the
>> redefinition of xsd numeric datatypes with overlapping (non-disjoint)
>> value spaces.  While we all agreed the idea of e.g. "1.0"^^xsd:double
>> and "1"^^xsd:decimal being the same entity makes sense, RIF adds a set
>> of builtin functions and predicates to its chosen xsd's and these are
>> based on a wide implementation base that assume disjointness of xsd
>> value spaces.  Breaking these implementations would negatively impact
>> interchange and significantly raise the "barrier to entry".
>>
>> Of lesser concern we do not see value for our user base in adopting
>> owl:rational but note that is already At Risk in the current OWL2
>> drafts. We also do not see value in requiring support for the string
>> subtypes xsd:normalizedString, xsd:token, xsd:Name, xsd:NCName and
>> xsd:NMTOKEN.  

This last comment should be only about OWL 2 RL.  We never discussed the
datatypes in the overall OWL 2.

> 
> 

-- 
Jos de Bruijn            debruijn@inf.unibz.it
+390471016224         http://www.debruijn.net/
----------------------------------------------
No one who cannot rejoice in the discovery of
his own mistakes deserves to be called a
scholar.
  - Donald Foster