Re: renaming rdf:text to rdf:plainLiteral and other issues with the proposal

On 24 May 2009, at 10:52, Ivan Herman wrote:

> Peter F.Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>
>> However, and this is a very big caveat, I really don't want the  
>> design
>> of RDF changed in response to this new datatype, as has been  
>> proposed.
>> If having the datatype in the rdf namespace requires a design change,
>> then I think that it would be much better to just have an OWL  
>> datatype
>> for this purpose.
>>
>
> I see in the poll that I am in minority here:-( but I have the
> impression that the whole discussion was largely started by the fact
> that we introduced something in the RDF namespace and therefore a  
> number
> of people considered this (whether right or wrong) as something having
> an effect on RDF design. Ie, I still believe we should stay away from
> the RDF namespace but, as we seem to say in the group, I will not lie
> down the road over this:-)

If this would stop the maddness, then I'm fine with it being in the  
OWL namespace or the RDFS namespace. I'd prefer not the RIF namespace  
because that means a new namespace for me to deal with.

Cheers,
Bijan.