Re: RDF 2 Wishlist

Pat Hayes wrote:
> 
> On Nov 2, 2009, at 9:53 AM, Damian Steer wrote:
> 
>> Jie Bao wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
>>>> So, what should W3C standardize next in the area of RDF, if anything?
>>>
>>> replace (with backward compatibility assurance) the use of plain
>>> literals with rdf:PlainLiteral [1] - this datatype is defined in the
>>> RDF namespace anyway.
>>
>> Yuck! I thought the idea was to improve RDF?
>>
> 
> That was my first reaction, but on reflection this really is a good
> idea. ALL literals should have a datatype. Having plain literals in RDF
> is a very clear example of premature optimization. So +1 to Jie.

To be clear: I'd like all literals to have a datatype and the
possibility of a language. I can't explain literals to people without
uttering the phrase 'for some reason' (often concerning issues around
xsd:string).

However rdf:PlainLiteral is ugly.

Damian