W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > February 2001

Re: does RDF require understanding all 82 URI schemes?

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:10:05 -0500
To: champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr
Cc: GK@ninebynine.org, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-Id: <20010212091005W.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
Subject: Re: does RDF require understanding all 82 URI schemes?
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:15:06 +0100

> Graham Klyne wrote:
> > 
> > At 02:03 PM 2/7/01 -0500, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > >In an e-mail discussion Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> mentioned the
> > >existance of a data: URI Scheme.  I was wondering if RDF parsers are
> > >supposed to understand all 82 URI schemes and what they are supposed to do
> > >with them.
> > 
> > I don't think an RDF parser should "understand" any URI scheme -- just
> > handle all URIs according to the syntactic rules of RFC2396.
> I agree totally.
> And I don't think Dan's proposition of using 'data:' URI scheme contracicts with that :
> currently, RDF handle two kinds of things (URIs and Literals) and handle them in different ways
> (Literal can not be subject nor predicate of a statement, which happens to bother much people,
>  -- the subject issue, at least)

How can this be?  If RDF doesn't understand URI schemes, then it should not
add extra semantics to the 'data;' URI scheme.  

Further, there will have to be a mechanism for parsing the ``content'' of
these URIs.  Otherwise, data;10.000 and data;10.00 will be two different
``objects'', which may not be what was wanted.

Peter Patel-Schneider
Received on Monday, 12 February 2001 09:11:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:34 UTC