Re: does RDF require understanding all 82 URI schemes?

At 09:10 AM 2/12/01 -0500, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>How can this be?  If RDF doesn't understand URI schemes, then it should not
>add extra semantics to the 'data;' URI scheme.

It doesn't need to understand 'data:' (by which I mean: no need for special 
interpretation of 'data:'), only that RDF literals may be re-cast as 
resources using the data: scheme.  A presented data: resource would (or 
should in my view) be treated like any other URI.

>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 don't think this is a new problem.  Currently "10.000" and "10.00" are 
two distinct literals.  They just happen to be equivalent under some 
interpretations.  (I'll observe that on engineering drawings they commonly 
have different interpretations.)


Graham Klyne

Received on Wednesday, 14 February 2001 10:50:14 UTC