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

> 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.

Or at least have defined a basic "catalog" which maps URI
scheme names to known resolution agents.

> 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.

Amen.

> 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.

I very much agree. And intend to address this exact issue shortly.

Cheers,

Patrick

--
Patrick Stickler                      Phone:  +358 3 356 0209
Senior Research Scientist             Mobile: +358 50 483 9453
Nokia Research Center                 Fax:    +358 7180 35409
Visiokatu 1, 33720 Tampere, Finland   Email:  patrick.stickler@nokia.com

Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2001 09:37:20 UTC