Re: draft public comment for OWL last call from RIF

Bijan Parsia wrote:
> On 23 Jan 2009, at 15:42, Jos de Bruijn wrote:
>> 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 :-)
> (Assuming that = and sameAs are the same :))

Yes, they are both interpreted as identity :)

>>> 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.
> Well, that is also a reason for owl to have rationals (and reals in
> general). We intend to support linear (and possibly non-linear)
> inequations (as constraints). If you don't support that, then rationals
> become less compelling and thus might yield to implementation
> considerations.

Fine by me. I don't feel very strongly about the sets of datatypes
diverging, just about their semantics (i.e., the definitions of their
value spaces) :-)

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 16:03:46 UTC