W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2001

Re: [Fwd: rdfms-literals-as-resources]

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 21:29:43 -0500
Message-ID: <3B6E0117.8A2FD114@w3.org>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Brian McBride wrote:
> 
> I was unaware of a length restriction on URI's.  Is there one?

There are limitations in various implementations that deal
with URIs... e.g. most HTTP servers only accept a few
kilobytes in the request header line in order to prevent
denial-of-service attacks.

But there's no limit on URIs per se.


This was recently discussed in uri@w3.org... er... I thought
it was, but I can't find it out.

> Brian
> 
> Devon Smith wrote:
> >
> > Let me first say that conceptually, i like the idea of literals being
> > resources, mostly because i think one should be allowed to make
> > assertions about literals. However, the data: scheme is an unacceptable
> > solution to the problem of how to assign a URI to a string of
> > characters. The length limit, recognized by the RFC,

What RFC?

> > is a legitimate
> > concern for implementors. Another concern is how strings encoded
> > in UTF-8, UTF-16 and other non-ascii, non-latin encodings would be
> > dealt with.
> >
> > I can't think of an elegant way to make Literals be part of the Resource
> > set. All I can see is a way to allow Literals to be treated as Resources
> > when needed. One could use anonymous resources in conjunction with
> > a property like "RDF:represents" to create a resource that represents
> > a Literal.
> >
> > <rdf:Description rdf:about="genid">
> >         <rdf:represents>Some insightful quote</rdf:represents>
> >         <a:attributedTo>Some insightful woman</a:attributedTo>
> > </rdf:Description>

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Sunday, 5 August 2001 22:30:47 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:38:44 EDT