W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2002

RE: Justification for new node type

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 20:35:03 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B160B91@trebe006.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@w3.org]
> Sent: 09 August, 2002 20:07
> To: Stickler Patrick (NRC/Tampere)
> Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Justification for new node type
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2002 Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> > I would like the proponents of the recent proposal for
> > a new datatyped literal node type to justify why URIs
> > cannot be used.
> I have literals nodes whose content payload might be approx 1 
> Gb in size.
> If these values were 'URI'ified, do we have any reason to 
> believe standard
> URI libraries would be able to cope with textual URIref 
> labels on such a
> scale? Can strings of such a size reasonably be claimed to even be
> RFC2396 URIrefs?

Good argument.

Another that I will offer myself ;-) is that, if the
abstract syntax can see the structure of the datatyped
literal node label, then a closure rule can be written
to relate the local idiom with rdf:type semantics as
well as with a global idiom.

C.f. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0114.html

If the node is an opaque URIref node, then the datatype which
constitutes the rdf:type of the node is not accessible.

Received on Friday, 9 August 2002 13:35:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:59 UTC