- From: Jonas Liljegren <jonas@paranormal.o.se>
- Date: Sun, 05 Dec 1999 15:20:33 +0100
- To: seth@halcyon.com
- CC: RDF Intrest Group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
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
Received on Sunday, 5 December 1999 09:11:17 UTC