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

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

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:40:49 +0100
Message-ID: <4DFF3FD1.4040402@epimorphics.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org

On 20/06/11 12:29, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> 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
> Yes.

I'm glad to hear that because your original message said (my emphasis):

Given that the *term* “plain literal” is likely to be removed from the 
abstract syntax".

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

No, it is not such a vote.

rdf:PlainLiteral is a datatype.  It says so in the title
of the document.

rdf:PlainLiteral is not established terminology in RDF data.

The spliting of datatype and class here, in particular, is not established.

Until we have a decision on language tag literals, I don't see much 
value in discussing rdf:PlainLiteral unless the design of 
rdf:PlainLiteral is supposed to influence that decision.


> Best, Richard
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 12:41:20 UTC

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