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

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

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 12:29:21 +0100
Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <E5A43132-5D3D-4726-B985-A1B5F0293E79@cyganiak.de>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
On 20 Jun 2011, at 09:08, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> We *may* wish to change terminology when we have decided what to do about language tags


> but I think the terminology is out there and well used


> so we should proceed with great caution.  The time for changing terminology just because it is "better" is long gone.

The term “Plain Literal” *will* still be present in the RDF 1.1 Concepts document, for exactly the reason you state, *at least* in a Note. We will discuss this in more detail when a decision regarding language tags has been made; right now it's premature.

At any rate, I take your message as a vote that the class containing all xsd:strings and all language-tagged strings should be called rdf:PlainLiteral as it reflects established terminology.

Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 11:29:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:59 UTC