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

RE: does RDF require understanding all 82 URI schemes?

From: Bill de hOra <bill@dehora.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 00:58:38 -0000
To: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
Cc: "RDF interest group" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DCEBKOHMHCKKIAAPKLLMCEIMCBAA.bill@dehora.fsnet.co.uk>
: Aaron Swartz:
: A data: URI represents what it contains -- nothing more, nothing less.
:
: The problems only come when you attach a semantic meaning to the URIs, which
: you shouldn't (even if you can).

Ok. I don't see the value of allowing a machine to determine two data URIs are
syntactically identical, where they could do the same with string literals
anyway. With literals it's explicit that they are semantically distinct and
can't be safely unified. With data: URIs it's explicit that they are
semantically distinct and can't be safely unified.  What extra do you get from
data URIs, other than a mimetype (which seems questionable)?

Though mind you that does raise a point. Since data URIs don't refer to
resources, do the set of resources need to explicitly exclude the data URI as
being possible identifiers? Has this come up before?

Bill de hOra
Received on Wednesday, 14 February 2001 19:58:51 GMT

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