W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > May 2009

Re: (poll) renaming rdf:text to rdf:plainLiteral

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 09:00:22 +0200
Message-ID: <4A179F06.8090708@w3.org>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-rif-wg@w3.org, public-owl-wg@w3.org


Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> Maybe we can get the XML Schema folks to put it in that namespace.
> After all, much of the motivation is to make it sit with equal
> standing among the rest of the XML Schema datatypes.

I would not go there. It leads to major coordination problems and,
frankly, their hands are probably full with their own.

Ivan

> -Alan
> 
> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>> One step further: why having this thing in the rdf namespace? I must admit I
>> was always a bit uneasy about using the rdf namespace for that in the past,
>> but I accepted. But it started as a 'thing' that seemed to be a common need
>> for RIF and OWL, and we may want to keep it that way.
>>
>> It could be in the OWL or the RIF namespace or has a namespace of its own.
>>
>> Just and idea...
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>> Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>> It seems like most of the furor over rdf:text has been caused by some
>>> misunderstandings about its intended role.  One of the proposals to help
>>> clarify its role has been to rename it from rdf:text to
>>> rdf:plainLiteral.  The idea behind this name is to help underscore that
>>> it is exactly equivalent (mapping 1-1) to "RDF Plain Literals" [1].  It
>>> is not something else, something new, different, or useful in it's own
>>> right.  It's just a standard way for systems to handle RDF Plain
>>> Literals as XML datatype values.  Systems can use it if it makes it
>>> easier for them, working with RDF data outside of RDF graphs (as in RIF
>>> and OWL 2).  Within RDF graphs, by definition, there is direct support
>>> of RDF Plain Literals.
>>>
>>> The original renaming proposal [2] was from Axel, and so far everyone
>>> who has talked about it on public-rdf-text seems supportive of it.
>>> Before we (that is, Boris) actually edit(s) that spec to make the name
>>> change, we wanted to do a quick check to see if anyone has a problem
>>> with this.  Obviously, we'll also need to make the name change in
>>> various other documents.  I know it's a bit of a hassle, but try reading
>>> a day of the rdf-text mailing list; you'll start to see why a change
>>> like this starts to seem cheap and easy.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>>     -- Sandro
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#dfn-plain-literal
>>> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-text/2009AprJun/0148
>>>
>> --
>>
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>>

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf


Received on Saturday, 23 May 2009 07:01:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:08 GMT