- From: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
- Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:15:06 +0100
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- CC: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Graham Klyne wrote: > > At 02:03 PM 2/7/01 -0500, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > >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. > > I don't think an RDF parser should "understand" any URI scheme -- just > handle all URIs according to the syntactic rules of RFC2396. I agree totally. And I don't think Dan's proposition of using 'data:' URI scheme contracicts with that : currently, RDF handle two kinds of things (URIs and Literals) and handle them in different ways (Literal can not be subject nor predicate of a statement, which happens to bother much people, -- the subject issue, at least) Using 'data:' URIs instead of Literals has teh following advantages : - RDF has to manage one unique sort of things : URI - hence, there is no limitation on literals (since they are not distinct from resources) - 'data:' URIs have a mime/type, which literals do not ! - surely some others I don't see... That does not mean we have to change the spec : - the syntax remains unchanged - old-style parsers parse embeded literals as plain literals - new-style parsers convert embeded literals as 'data:' URI - hence, old-style literals are sill allowed in the model, but discouraged Note that old-style parsers will have no problem with RDF-pieces containing 'data:' URIs, since they are valid URIs... Pierre-Antoine -- Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us. (Bill Watterson -- Calvin & Hobbes)
Received on Monday, 12 February 2001 08:15:27 UTC