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.)

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)

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