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 21:25:21 +0100
Message-ID: <4DFFACB1.3000308@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org

On 20/06/11 15:39, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> On 20 Jun 2011, at 15:20, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>> my main hope is that other documents (i.e. SPARQL) that refer to the term "plain literal" will automagically adopt the new meaning once the new RDF documents are published.
> I understand.
> Let's pick this discussion up again when the RDF Concepts editors have proposed concrete words.

(team Q, process Q)

Procedurally, does this mean SPARQL is going to have to wait until RDF 
Concepts is formally unchangeable?

Is that the point when the WG agrees no more LCs - or does it have to 
until REC so it can reference RDF Concepts properly? other?


> Best,
> Richard
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 20:25:53 UTC

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