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