- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 17:04:26 +0300
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
ian: > Under these circumstances I'm not sure that the paragraph my text > is necessary - the semantics of datatype theories was carefully > designed so that this kind of thing would NOT be necessary. Hmm. If that's the case then I suspect we will end up aborting the LC vote. That understanding of datatyping gets into too many places for it to be simply an editorial action to fix it. Can I ask a concrete question: http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/proposedByIssue#I5.8-003 _:a rdf:type owl:Restriction . first:p rdf:type owl:DatatypeProperty . first:p rdfs:range xsd:byte . first:p rdfs:range xsd:unsignedInt . _:a owl:onProperty first:p . _:a owl:cardinality "129"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger . first:john rdf:type _:a . this is inconsistent, but to know it you need to know about xsd:byte and xsd:unsignedInt and their relationship. What should a complete OWL Consistency Checker that only knows about integer and string return? My text says: Unknown Without it I think we have to say: Consistent, despite the test case being inconsistent. Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2003 11:04:19 UTC