Re: Literals (Re: model theory for RDF/S)

[<Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>]

>
> Granted, a given RDF application will generally need to know about or
infer
> (RDF defined) semantics attributed to a given URI according to one or more
> ontologies, or dereference a given URI to access additional data,
> but that is beyond the scope of RDF proper and even in the case of
> dereferencing a URI, the RDF application itself does not have to
understand
> anything about the URI, only how to interact with an dereferencing agent
> which itself understands the URI.
>
This is the real issue, I think.  How should the processor know that some
URIs are supposed to be de-referenced and some are not?  With a literal, it
knows what to do: grab the string and use it, probably as a label.  If an
object must be a resource, then the processor has to understand the scheme
to know, and if a URL scheme has been used for a non-addressable resource it
is that much harder.

If just one or two schemes like data: were allowed the processor could still
know what to do - use the string encoded in the data: URI, and treat all
others as non-addressable URIs.  Otherwise, the processor would not know
what to do.

I conclude that either literals should be kept or that there should be a
specific type (or a few types) of schemes reserved for literal-like
resources.

Cheers,

Tom P

Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2001 09:04:54 UTC