W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > June 2011

Re: What can/should/must we do with rdf:PlainLiteral?

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 13:48:51 -0400
Message-ID: <4DFE3683.5060103@thefigtrees.net>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
CC: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 6/19/2011 1:35 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> A question to the team contacts.
>
> Given that the term “plain literal” is likely to be removed from the abstract syntax, our work has a serious impact on the rdf:PlainLiteral specification.

Richard, do you see any way to implement the recent resolution without 
removing the term "plain literal" from the abstract syntax? Would it be 
possible to re-define it within the abstract syntax to be the same thing 
as a "typed literal with data type xsd:string"?

I don't know what impact doing this would have on the rdf:PlainLiteral 
question (so apologies for hijacking your question), but I think that 
potentially other specs such as (surprise) SPARQL Query might end up 
with far fewer required changes if they could still lean on the RDF 
Concepts definition of "plain literal".

(I haven't done an actual audit of uses of the term in the SPARQL Query 
document, but this is a suspicion I've been clinging to since last week.)

What do you think?

Lee

>
> Regarding W3C process, what are our options and/or duties regarding that spec?
>
> Can we just ignore it?
>
> Do we *have* to update it, given that it's sorta in RDF Core territory and we are making changes to its subject matter?
>
> Does some other WG *have* to update it and do we need to work with them?
>
> *Can* we even update it, if we want to?
>
> Just trying to understand the space of possibilities.
>
> Best,
> Richard
>
Received on Sunday, 19 June 2011 17:49:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:44 GMT