- From: Devon Smith <devon@taller.pscl.cwru.edu>
- Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 16:41:01 -0400
- To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
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 Wednesday, 1 August 2001 16:37:59 UTC