- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 11:23:58 +0000
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:06:52 +0000, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote: > 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. OWL also allows xsd:integer and this is what cwm uses/generates. I discussed this with Tim and Dan and we came to the conclusion it was a better choice. If you read the changelog in the turlle page, I give the links to the parts of the OWL documents. Dave
Received on Friday, 26 March 2004 06:30:27 UTC