- From: Thomas B. Passin <tpassin@home.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 09:09:41 -0400
- To: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
[<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