Re: specifying minimal datatypes without reference to "OWL Tools"

Hmm... I gather Peter is travelling.

Meanwhile, I'd be interested to know if anybody
else agrees or disagrees that this is an improvement...

On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 09:37, Dan Connolly wrote:
> Prompted by Martin's I18N questions, I found...
> 
> "OWL tools need only implement the datatypes xsd:integer and
> xsd:string."
>   --
> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/syntax.html#owl_built_in_datatypes
> 
> What's an "OWL tool"? Let's specify the language
> without reference to software.
> 
> In 3.1. Vocabularies and Interpretations,
> please change the defintion of datatype theory
> and/or Abstract OWL interpretation so that
> integer and string have to be included in the
> set of datatypes for every Abstract OWL interpretation.
> 
> And change OWL interpretation in 5.2. OWL Interpretations
> likewise.
> 
> Then strike the "OWL tools..." bit in
> section 2. Abstract Syntax.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2003 10:25:31 UTC