RE: does RDF require understanding all 82 URI schemes?

At 12:58 AM 2/15/01 +0000, you wrote:
>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)?

What you get, IMO, is a simplification of the RDF model.

>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?

I think data URIs _do_ refer to resources.  Very primitive resources that 
map the URI to a specified item of data (and some associated MIME labelling).

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
GK@NineByNine.org