W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > March 2003

Re: URI/RDF math

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:37:10 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20030318.093710.70936812.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jonathan@openhealth.org
Cc: miles@milessabin.com, www-rdf-logic@w3.org

From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Subject: Re: URI/RDF math
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:27:18 -0500

> 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.

Well you certainly can use URIs to encode integers and then use such URIs
in owl:ObjectProperty's if that is what you want.  However, you are not
going to get OWL to understand your encoding, and thus OWL will be
(blissfully) unaware of any connection between integer:5 and the integer 5.

You are going to get just about as much of the meaning of integers using
this proposal as you would get of universal quantification using an
encoding like:

	  <log:variable rdf:resource="x" />
	      <rdf:subject rdf:resource="x" />
	      <rdf:predicate rdf:resource="ex:loves" />
	      <rdf:object rdf:resource="ex:Mary" />

> Jonathan

Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2003 09:37:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:39 UTC