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

On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 13:40 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> 
> 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.

I'm inclined to agree...

On the procedural front, I think we'll have a few details to work
through, but no real barriers.  In particular, if we want to publish an
updated version of the rdf:PlainLiteral spec, we'll have to figure out
whether that should be done formally by the RDF WG or the RIF+OWL WGs,
but since they still exist (but just dont have any work right now),
either way should be okay.

If we want to fold rdf:PlainLiteral into the main RDF 1.1 documents, I
think we can do that, and make http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-plain-literal/
point to an explanation with a reference to the new definition.  I think
the important thing there is that the references from RIF and OWL to
rdf:PlainLiteral still work properly, and that seems totally doable.   

(Although, if RDF WG can clean up plain literals enough, I think RIF and
OWL might just be happy to go rip out rdf:PlainLiteral; but that's
harder to predict.)

   -- Sandro