does RDF require understanding all 82 URI schemes?

In an e-mail discussion Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> mentioned the
existance of a data: URI Scheme.  I was wondering if RDF parsers are
supposed to understand all 82 URI schemes and what they are supposed to do
with them.

Peter Patel-Schneider

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Subject: Re: added diagrams to "Using XML Schema Data Types..."
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 12:40:10 -0600
> "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
> > 
> > From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
> > Subject: Re: added diagrams to "Using XML Schema Data Types..."
> > Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 11:23:18 -0600
> > 
> > > "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
> [...]
> > > > Further, it appears to me that Dan's proposal breaks RDF in a very
> > > > significant fashion, requiring literals (or at least datatype values) to be
> > > > the source of properties.
> > >
> > > I don't see this as breaking RDF. It's always been
> > > the case that you could look at the string "xyz"
> > > as the resource data:,xyz and use it as the subject
> > > of an assertion.
> > 
> > Where is this described/defined?  How is the URI ``data:,xyz'' related to
> > the RDF literal xyz?
> 
> RDF literals are a little underspecified, but assuming
> we agree that the RDF literal xyz is nothing more
> and nothing less than sequence
> of the 3 characters x, y, z, then that's what data:,xyz is
> specified to denote as well;
> 
> Data: URL scheme, L. Masinter, August 1998.
> ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2397.txt
> 
> (cited from our handy index of URI schemes
> http://www.w3.org/Addressing/schemes#data )
> 
> Maybe this is a somewhat creative interpretation.
> But again, from my perspective, it doesn't seem to
> conflict with the way RDF works.

Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2001 14:03:39 UTC