- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 21:33:19 +0100
- To: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
I was unaware of a length restriction on URI's. Is there one? Brian Devon Smith wrote: > > Let me first say that conceptually, i like the idea of literals being > resources, mostly because i think one should be allowed to make > assertions about literals. However, the data: scheme is an unacceptable > solution to the problem of how to assign a URI to a string of > characters. The length limit, recognized by the RFC, is a legitimate > concern for implementors. Another concern is how strings encoded > in UTF-8, UTF-16 and other non-ascii, non-latin encodings would be > dealt with. > > I can't think of an elegant way to make Literals be part of the Resource > set. All I can see is a way to allow Literals to be treated as Resources > when needed. One could use anonymous resources in conjunction with > a property like "RDF:represents" to create a resource that represents > a Literal. > > <rdf:Description rdf:about="genid"> > <rdf:represents>Some insightful quote</rdf:represents> > <a:attributedTo>Some insightful woman</a:attributedTo> > </rdf:Description>
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2001 10:42:58 UTC