Re: URI/RDF math

• From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
• Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:27:18 -0500
• To: "Miles Sabin" <miles@milessabin.com>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <093e01c2ed5a$7e50f6b0$b6f5d3ce@L565>

Miles Sabin wrote:

>
> Could you explain the significance of "integer:n" and "integer:n+1"?
> You're clearly trying to express the successor relation, but I'm not
> sure I understand what these two URIs are supposed to be doing.
>

I did not intend to present a specific proposal to represent integers as
URIs, rather suggest that integers *might be* mapped to the URI space rather
than from the string space as is done with XML Schema xsd:integer, and hence
the current RDF datatyping proposal.

The significance of this is that integer values (or any other typed value
presumably) might thus be represented as owl:ObjectProperty's rather than as
owl:DatatypeProperty's.

Jonathan

Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2003 09:27:51 UTC