W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > September 2002

RE: Non-Text Literals

From: Ashley Yakeley <ashley@semantic.org>
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 23:42:28 -0700
Message-Id: <200209020642.XAA19116@mail4.halcyon.com>
To: "Bill de hÓra" <dehora@eircom.net>, "'RDF Interest Group'" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

At 2002-09-01 11:16, Bill de hÓra wrote:

>Ok. Self contained in RDF is handing someone an RDF graph. Sending
>resource representations around with the graph is extra.

Think of the image as a literal rather than a "resource representation", 
just like those bits of text that pepper most RDF.

>There's only so much you can do with literals since
>they can't be subjects of statements. For example. today there's no
>standard way for I and someone else to know (infer) that the literal
>image we have is indeed the same image you sent out twice.

True, but that's really the same as any literal. If I really need to make 
statements about some image, I can always do something like this 
(assuming I can specify MIME-type and encoding):

  <Person>
    <name>Ashley Yakeley</name>
    <photograph>
      <Image>
      <rdfs:label>a picture of me</rdfs:label>
      <content mime:mimetype="image/jpeg" mime:encoding="base64">
          ...
      </content>
      </Image>
    </photograph>
  </Person>

> Ultimately, BLOBs need URIs to make them truly valuable in RDF.

Well it's easy to make a literal the object of some property of some 
resource.

-- 
Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA
Received on Monday, 2 September 2002 02:42:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:56 GMT