RE: referendum on httpRange-14 (was RE: "information resource")

I don't see the data: URI scheme as being appropriate for anything
but plain literals, because language qualification and typed literals
have nothing to do with MIME types.

Yes, you could probably figure out how to coerce data: URIs to
embody language qualified and typed literals, and get some applications
to recognize those literal values accordingly, but I think it would
be a bit too much of a hack.

Better IMO to have a distinct URI scheme with precise, well defined
interpretation of all URIs using that scheme to their corresponding
literal values. 

Patrick


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> ext Jonathan Borden
> Sent: 30 October, 2004 00:08
> To: Chris Lilley; www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: referendum on httpRange-14 (was RE: "information 
> resource")
> 
> 
> 
> Chris Lilley wrote:
> 
> >With the proviso that I would prefer
> >
> >data:text/plain;charset="utf-8",some%20percent%20escaped%20li
> teral%20value
> >
> >It seems a perfectly fine way to define a literal. Its also 
> a URI, its
> >moderately compact, the network performance is very good :) it has a
> >defined media type, its clear exactly what the representation is, its
> >clear that its always available and does not vary by media type,
> >referer, time of day, etc.
> >  
> >
> This does seems reasonable but would require some changes to RDF that 
> probably could be worked out but might be less straighforward 
> than you 
> might initially suspect. The "new" RDF literals are binary, 
> i.e. consist 
> of a string literal followed by a "^^" and then a URI datatype. So 
> somehow that would need to be fit with data: URIs.
> 
> There might be other issues with OWL. As I recall, one of the 
> reasons to 
> distinguish between owl:ObjectProperty (URIs) and 
> owl:DatatypeProperty 
> (literals) is that there are some issues in reasoning when regarding 
> integers as URIs. For example suppose one restricts the 
> rdf:range of a 
> particular datatype property to "xsd:positiveInteger". 
> Without special 
> knowledge (e.g. of integer arithmetic) you would need to 
> represent the 
> datatype class as an infinite set of data: URIs... typically 
> a reasoning 
> engine handles such XSD datatypes as special cases i.e. falls out of 
> strict FOL/DL. I suppose such engines could parse URIs, but 
> somehow we 
> would need a way to embed a datatype specifier in the data: URI. Not 
> impossible but not entirely trivial either.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
>

Received on Monday, 1 November 2004 07:44:45 UTC