- From: Bill de hOra <bill@dehora.fsnet.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 00:58:38 -0000
- To: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
- Cc: "RDF interest group" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
: Aaron Swartz: : A data: URI represents what it contains -- nothing more, nothing less. : : The problems only come when you attach a semantic meaning to the URIs, which : you shouldn't (even if you can). Ok. I don't see the value of allowing a machine to determine two data URIs are syntactically identical, where they could do the same with string literals anyway. With literals it's explicit that they are semantically distinct and can't be safely unified. With data: URIs it's explicit that they are semantically distinct and can't be safely unified. What extra do you get from data URIs, other than a mimetype (which seems questionable)? Though mind you that does raise a point. Since data URIs don't refer to resources, do the set of resources need to explicitly exclude the data URI as being possible identifiers? Has this come up before? Bill de hOra
Received on Wednesday, 14 February 2001 19:58:51 UTC