Re: editoral comments on rdf:text

>> I loved the first example.   (it's odd, but cool.)
>
> The "foo-bar" language example?? I *hated* it. Invalid data is always uncool. 

Sorry, "first example" isn't a very good description.  I'm referring to
the one about cardinality....

      ....
      This OWL 2 axiom states that the individual a:i is connected by
      the property a:property to at least n different strings of length
      one. The number of such strings is limited to 1,112,061 by the
      above definitions, so this ontology is satisfiable if and only if
      n is smaller than or equal to 1,112,061.

I guess I just like big numbers and crazy logic hacks, and this is both.
I ran off and calculated what n would have to be if the length of the
string were 80 chars instead of one.  (The answer is about 1e+485, which
I could have done in my head if I'd thought about it a litte, since each
character is basically 6 decimal digits.)  (Hmmm, so when we're storing
them in a 32-bit field, there's a lot of wasted space, since unicode
only needs about 20 bits.  Ah well.  I guess that's what UTF-* is for.)

     -- Sandro

Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2009 06:21:22 UTC