W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > July to September 2001


From: Devon Smith <devon@taller.pscl.cwru.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 16:41:01 -0400
To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <20010801164101.A9154@taller.pscl.cwru.edu>

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, 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>
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2001 16:37:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:15 UTC