This is an interesting modeling choice, since the standard way to describe data types with owl or rdf in general is done using datatypes such as http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#integer.
In fact, this leads to a discrepancy between EMMO and almost any other ontology, which does hinder the possibility to match EMMO classes and individuals to other ontologies.
EMMO uses Classes to describe data types e.g.: http://emmo.info/emmo/middle/math#EMMO_f8bd64d5_5d3e_4ad4_a46e_c30714fecb7f (Integer)
This is an interesting modeling choice, since the standard way to describe data types with owl or rdf in general is done using datatypes such as http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#integer.
In fact, this leads to a discrepancy between EMMO and almost any other ontology, which does hinder the possibility to match EMMO classes and individuals to other ontologies.
E.g.: EMMO quantity modeling: Any Concept (Individual) -> hasQuantityValue -> Integer (Individual) -> hasNumericalData -> xsd:integer
Why not: Any Concept (Individual) -> hasNumericalData -> xsd:integer
Since the datatype is anyhow described by xsd:integer.