Re: [Gzz] Literal names in the structure

[Tuukka Hastrup]

On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Rauli Ruohonen wrote:
> I looked at the recent RDF stuff, and while I think that it's the right
> direction to go to (it even feels almost like high time to do that ;-),
> there's one thing that bugs me with it: literal strings in places
> where they don't belong to. (or maybe I'm mistaken, I did look at it
> rather superficially.. yet, most systems still get this wrong)

Could RDF literals perhaps be thought of as resources of "literal", ie. 
"literal:utf-8/<some literal coded in UTF-8>"? Anyway, it does make sense 
to have some way to express terminals, and literals are quite efficient 
and practical in that, for some uses.

> Anything that doesn't come with a content-type, that can't be replaced
> e.g. with a silly animated png of a bear or something, should be a
> randomly generated bit string, or otherwise complete gibberish to a human.

I hope all media we're going to use is xanalogical anyway and not RDF 
literals :-) But one idea in using RDF is that we could better collaborate 
with others. That's why Loom starts as a browser to *general* RDF data, 
including data that uses literals to express all terminals.


Now, another thing is, how much will we use literals in our own data. 
Maybe some for performance, maybe some to express machine-generated data?

-- 
-- Trying to catch me? Just follow up my Electric Fingerprints
-- To help you: address@hidden
                http://www.iki.fi/Tuukka.Hastrup/
                IRCNet: Stugge/tuukkah @#pii,#gzz,#ynna
                Jabber ID: address@hidden, ICQ #11321669