Re: adding PlainLiteral to the document at http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns

rdf:PlainLiteral rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .

should be sufficient.

peter

PS:  If you want to fit into the document a bit better, try

<rdfs:Datatype rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#PlainLiteral">
  <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Literal"/>
  <rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"/>
  <rdfs:label>Plain Literal</rdfs:label>
  <rdfs:comment>The class of RDF plain literal values.</rdfs:comment>
</rdfs:Datatype>

which is just the stuff for rdf:XMLLiteral with the names and comments
changed to protect the guilty.

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Subject: Re: adding PlainLiteral to the document at http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns 
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 14:21:20 -0500

> 
>> Sorry, just repeating my comment with a better subject: line.
>> I think this is going to be pretty important for TAG and director
>> approval, so getting permission in advance from whoever's
>> in charge of this URI would probably be a good idea.
> 
> Yeah, I'm not sure at which maturity we'll do it, but I'll find out.  CR
> seems about right to me.  There's no particular permission needed; it's
> one of the jobs of the team contact (ie me) to set up namespace
> documents as needed.
> 
> Actually, I don't know what triples should go there for this.  Ideas?
> 
>       -- Sandro
> 
>> Jonathan
>> 
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
>> Date: Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 6:08 AM
>> Subject: Re: built-in naming in rdf:PlainLiteral
>> To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
>> Cc: public-rdf-text@w3.org, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
>> 
>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org> wrote:
>> > We need to register the plfn: namespace, right?
>> 
>> Speaking of which, somebody is going to take care of coolifying the URI
>> http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#PlainLiteral , right? The
>> ontology you get currently doesn't mention this URI.
>

Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2009 19:46:54 UTC