- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:06:52 +0000
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, www-rdf-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 15:26 25/03/04 +0000, Dave Beckett wrote:
>The second was a new feature to make OWL constraints much easier to
>type; the addition of integer literals. These are non-negative
>decimal integers with an xsd:integer datatype, again matching what
>cwm does for such things. This added another new grammar term
>http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/discovery/2004/01/turtle/#integer
My recollection is that the OWL cardinalities are expressed as
xsd:nonNegativeInteger values. It's not clear to me that RDF has a way to
allow xsd:integer values where these are required, though I think the other
way would work through datatype subclass membership; e.g.:
_:x a xsd:nonNegativeInteger .
xsd:nonNegativeInteger rdfs:subClassOf xsd:integer .
|-
_:x a xsd:integer .
But not the other way round.
#g
------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Friday, 26 March 2004 05:14:10 UTC