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 15:37:20 +0100
Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <DB48D2D1-FC69-46BF-963D-4DDA8DF90586@cyganiak.de>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
On 20 Jun 2011, at 13:40, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> 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".
> ]]

You are right, I didn't phrase that very well.

>> 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.

Ok, I understand what your position is.

> 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.

The design of rdf:PlainLiteral *may* influence whether our resolutions are acceptable to the RIF and OWL WGs. Thus, a resolution that offers a coherent story on how to deal with rdf:PlainLiteral is preferable. This is why I would like to know whether W3C process places any restrictions on what we can do about the rdf:PlainLiteral spec.

Best,
Richard
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 14:37:49 GMT

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