- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:53:17 +0000
- To: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
- Cc: RDF interest group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 02:15 PM 2/12/01 +0100, you wrote:
> > 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 :
Neither do I. I, too, have suggested data: URIs for literals.
But I think there are some awkward issues to be resolved...
Consider (example from RFC 2397):
data:,A%20brief%20note
and
data:text/plain,A%20brief%20note
These both describe a literal value "A brief note".
Should there be exactly one resource corresponding to a given literal, or
may there be many?
- If one, then what is it's URI? Or do we allow multiple URIs for a given
resource?
- If many, then which one is to be inferred when a given literal is used in
RDF?
I suppose the easy way our would be to define a canonical form of data: URI
for RDF literals.... if it is indeed easy.
#g
------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Wednesday, 14 February 2001 10:50:45 UTC