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

Re: does RDF require understanding all 82 URI schemes?

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:53:17 +0000
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010214144529.00a36840@joy.songbird.com>
To: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
Cc: RDF interest group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 02:15 PM 2/12/01 +0100, you wrote:
> > 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 :

Neither do I.  I, too, have suggested data: URIs for literals.

But I think there are some awkward issues to be resolved...
Consider (example from RFC 2397):
    data:,A%20brief%20note
and
    data:text/plain,A%20brief%20note

These both describe a literal value "A brief note".

Should there be exactly one resource corresponding to a given literal, or 
may there be many?

- If one, then what is it's URI?  Or do we allow multiple URIs for a given 
resource?

- If many, then which one is to be inferred when a given literal is used in 
RDF?

I suppose the easy way our would be to define a canonical form of data: URI 
for RDF literals.... if it is indeed easy.

#g





------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Wednesday, 14 February 2001 10:50:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:48 GMT