W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2002

RE: what RDF is not (was ...)

From: Manos Batsis <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 14:48:40 +0200
Message-ID: <E657D8576967CF448D6AF22CB42DD2690FF1C6@ermhs.Athens.BrokerSystems.gr>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, "Mark Birbeck" <Mark.Birbeck@x-port.net>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com] 
> From: Mark Birbeck <Mark.Birbeck@x-port.net>
> > > From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider 
> [mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com]
> > > In particular, how 
> can RDF say something a particular
> > > arbitrary real number?  There just aren't enough URIs to 
> > > provide names for
> > > them all.
> > 
> > I don't follow you. Are you saying that there are less URIs 
> than there are
> > numbers? If you are, then this surely can't be true, since 
> at the very least
> > you could for any number create a URI such as:
> > 
> > 	http://www.someschemaorg.org/datatypes/int#347789
> How many URIs are there?  Only countably infinite.   How many 
> real numbers
> are there?  Uncountably infinite.  QED.

Fair enough but although resources are a wonderfull consept as used in
RDF(S), I see no need to present a number as an 'abstract class', that
is, give each unique number a URI (sounds like a nightmare to me).
Number literals do not need a URI, each one is unique and holds both
unique meaning and semantics. Thus, what we may need in RDF(S) is a
mechanism that will enable classification of such "global" literals in
the same way we tread resources (i.e. 9 is a subclass of int). I am not
sure if such an approach would safely work if freely applicable in the
real world though?

Kindest regards,

Received on Friday, 4 January 2002 07:46:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:39 UTC