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: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 09:52:48 +0000
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010215095145.03615940@joy.songbird.com>
To: "Bill de hOra" <bill@dehora.fsnet.co.uk>
Cc: RDF interest group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
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
Received on Thursday, 15 February 2001 05:11:49 GMT

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