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

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: adding PlainLiteral to the document at http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 17:34:07 -0500

> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Peter F.Patel-Schneider
> <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
>> From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: adding PlainLiteral to the document at http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns
>> Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 17:23:44 -0500
>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Peter F.Patel-Schneider
>>> <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
>>>> <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>
>>>>
>>>> *********************************
>>>>
>>>> Why is the rdfs:isDefinedBy bit above insufficient to satisfy
>>>
>>> Because there is no link to the specification. If I encountered this
>>> piece of rdf, I wouldn't know where to find something a human could
>>> read to understand what it's about. Speaking as a linked data
>>> consumer.
>>>
>>> -Alan
>>
>> So you want to do something *more* for rdf:PlainLiteral than is done for
>> any of the rest of the RDF vocabulary at
>> http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns.
> 
> Yes. I would do it for the other terms too, but that's out of scope.
> Also all the other terms are defined in the RDF documentation, which
> is a common starting point. This term is not.

Yes, but they aren't pointed to from the 
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns
so why should this new term have special treatment?

>> Of course, I know how to find out something a human can read to
>> understand what a piece of W3C stuff is about.  It's called Googling.
> 
> The LOD movement sees a use for browsing rdf documents and presenting
> useful information to what they browse. While that isn't *my* primary
> use case, I try to support their need since it costs so little.

Well, here it certainly costs uniformity, unless the other terms are
similarly treated.  

I also don't want to second-guess the original authors of the page, who
could easily have used the rdfs:seeAlso property if they choose to do
so.

> Usually.
> 
> -Alan

peter

Received on Thursday, 4 June 2009 00:52:24 UTC