- From: Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 10:23:30 +0100
- To: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
Joshua Allen wrote:
>>>I agree that the restriction on URIs in the subject in RDF is a mistake.
>>>
>>>
>>>I forgot what happened to that comment process wise.
>>>
>>>
>>It was a language extension that we did not feel was justified by the
>>charter and/or specific difficulties with RDF as defined. Generally,
>>
>>
>it
>
>This makes me nervous. We are already finding it very difficult to
>prevent people from using URIs in ambiguous ways; it seems we are
>inviting people to get even more confused if we allow literals.
>
>Can't people just mint a URI to stand in for a literal, if they want to
>assert about that literal?
>
>
Hmmm....
data:text/plain,some%20percent%20escaped%20literal%20value
Seems a bit ugly... and has probably been suggested before.
Stuart
--
Received on Friday, 29 October 2004 09:23:57 UTC