Re: Mime types, Literals == Resources

Seth Russell wrote:
> 
> Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN wrote:
> 
> > Jonas Liljegren wrote:
> > > I suggest:
> > >   - that ALL URI's representing retrievable data, will be considerd
> > >     literals.
> > >   - that each mime type will be a sub class to Literal
> >
> > Furthermore,
> > I suggest that there be no more distinction between
> >  triple(resource,resource,resource) and triple(resource,resource,litteral)
> > but that RDF looking like
> >
> >  <rdf:Description about="http://somewhere.org/something">
> >    <s:prop> This is a litteral </s:prop>
> >  </rdf:Description>
> >
> > be translated something like
> >
> > triple( s:prop, http://somewhere.com/something, thisfile.rdf#genid1 )
> >
> > where "thisfile.rdf#genid1" whould have "This is a litteral" as CONTENT...
> > which surely would raise some implementation issues left to discuss!
> > Though, that looks sound to me.
> 
> Excuse me for asking what might seem to some like a really stupid question.
> But suppose then we want to say something about "this literal" ... would we
> then write:
> 
> <rdf:Description about="This is a litteral">
>    <s:propB> Wanna take a bath</s:propB>
>  </rdf:Description>
> 
> ___OR___
> 
> <rdf:Description about="thisfile.rdf#genid1">
>    <s:propB>Wanna take a bath</s:propB>
>  </rdf:Description>

That would be the second version. You would always use the URI to point
to the literal. And "thisfile.rdf" would be translated to the absolute
URI for the first document.


-- 
/ Jonas  -  http://paranormal.o.se/myself/cv/index.html