Re: draft public comment for OWL last call from RIF

Bijan Parsia wrote:
> 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.

good, then we agree here :-)

> 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 :)

Sure, the operators are different, because the languages are different
in nature.

Best, Jos

> Cheers,
> Bijan.

Jos de Bruijn  
No one who cannot rejoice in the discovery of
his own mistakes deserves to be called a
  - Donald Foster

Received on Friday, 23 January 2009 15:42:26 UTC