• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: equivalentTo vs. XSLT
• From: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>
• Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 09:32:08 +0000
• In-reply-to: <3DD040EC.2050404@p...>
• References: <BD2DBD26EE0BAA48B1A425C7BE7923002CFF9F@c...> <200211112151.02436.miles@m...> <3DD040EC.2050404@p...>

Paul Prescod wrote,
> No, it isn't expressible in OWL 1.0. But it also doesn't require
> Turing-completeness so OWL 2.0 will probably handle it. It is a
> stated objective!

Which implies giving up decidability.

> O10. Arithmetic primitives
>
> The language should support the use of arithmetic functions. These
> can be used in translating between different units of measure.
>
> Motivation: Ontology interoperability"

Very sensible ... more expressive power would be helpful, even tho' that 
means giving up decidability.

> > Expressive power, decidability: pick one.
>
> No, I don't have to pick one.

See above.

Cheers,


Miles

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: equivalentTo vs. XSLT
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• References:
  • RE: XML/RDF
    • From: Micah Dubinko <MDubinko@c...>
  • Re: equivalentTo vs. XSLT
    • From: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>
  • Re: equivalentTo vs. XSLT
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML Schema
• Next by Date: Re: XML Schema
• Previous by thread: Re: equivalentTo vs. XSLT
• Next by thread: Re: equivalentTo vs. XSLT
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread