- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:39:51 +0000
- To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
On 23 Jan 2009, at 15:28, Jos de Bruijn wrote: >> One could make a better case that difference in the *semantics* of >> same >> named datatypes should be the same. But even there, OWL does >> *different >> things* with the datatypes (i.e., it treats them as constraints). > > I don't see a strong case for that. I personally find it ridiculous if > in OWL > "1"^^xsd:int owl:sameAs "1"^^xsd:float > is a tautology, but in RIF > "1"^^xsd:int = "1"^^xsd:float > is inconsistent. Jos, that is in the subset of the semantics where I think there could or should be harmonization. If you note the example of the "semantic" divergence (which isn't really a difference in semantics but in the available operators...but presumably predicates and operators are very user visible aspects of the semantics), I didn't propose this one :) Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Friday, 23 January 2009 15:36:27 UTC