Re: does RDF require understanding all 82 URI schemes?

"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
> > 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)
> How can this be?  If RDF doesn't understand URI schemes, then it should not
> add extra semantics to the 'data;' URI scheme.

The fact is : RDF parser "know" some semantics of the 'data:' scheme since they *produce* URIs of that scheme. But my point (and Graham's, I think) was that no knowledge of URI schemes is needed to parese URIs already present in the RDF serialization.

> Further, there will have to be a mechanism for parsing the ``content'' of
> these URIs.  Otherwise, data;10.000 and data;10.00 will be two different
> ``objects'', which may not be what was wanted.

  (I suppose you mean data:,10.000 instead of data;10.000)

No need to parse the content of 'data:' URIs more than 'http:' URIs.
And since data:,10.000 and data:,10.000 are the same URI (or aren't they ??)
they represent the same object.
(just the same as and )


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 09:25:50 UTC