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 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 16:03:46 UTC