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

Re: Proposal for ISSUE-12, string literals

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 16:36:39 +0100
Message-ID: <4DCD5007.1050504@epimorphics.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org


On 13/05/11 16:12, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> I'd like to add a paragraph somewhere that says, approximately: A
> datatype rdf:PlainLiteral has been defined in [THAT SPEC]. It's for
> compatibility with systems that require everything to have a
> datatype, or don't have anywhere to put a language tag, and hence
> couldn't represent RDF graphs otherwise. An implementation that
> supports real plain literals MUST use them and MUST NOT use
> rdf:PlainLiteral.
>
> Would that address your concern about mentioning equalities for
> rdf:PlainLiteral?
>
> Or do you think it would be better not to mention rdf:PlainLiteral at
> all in RDF Concepts?

If it's not needed, then I prefer to not add it but that approximate 
text is OK - reiterate the fact it should not appear in RDF exhcnaged 
between systems.

Generally, I think that adding a third form into the mix when none of 
them are complete solutions seems to be making it harder if/when a 
proper, complete solution in the future.  I have no real evidence just a 
instinct that an extra form can only make migration harder later.

	Andy
Received on Friday, 13 May 2011 15:37:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:42 GMT