- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 15:04:06 +0100
- To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Pat: > > PS real and imaginary parts of complex numbers seems to me to be a > very good motivating example for allowing literals to be subjects, by > the way. I would like to be able to write > > http://example.org/complex-number#imaginary-part rdfs:range > xmds:real-number > http://example.org/complex-number#imaginary-part rdfs:domain > xmds:complex-number > "13.6i20.4" http://example.org/complex-number#imaginary-part "13.6" > > and be referring to numbers (not strings) everywhere. > I am underwhelmed by this example; in fact a little worried. So then what about ... "13.6" http://example.org/complex-number#integral-part "13" . This looks like a thin end of a thick wedge. Any string encoding some (non-boolean?) datatype is subject to further decomposition of that datum. It may be important to ensure that that datatype internal reasoning is in a separate box from RDF. For example, if we allow the complete range of integer operations into RDF proper we may find that the logical properties we would like are getting undermined by the incompleteness (or inconsistency) of any discussion of the integers. Having literals as disjoint from resources, and forbidding literals as subjects are two techniques that help indicate a desire to not encode the whole of mathematics into RDF. (I think maths is the most problematic domain). Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2001 10:06:16 UTC