On Nov 2, 2009, at 10:01 AM, Dave Beckett 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. >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-text/ > > rdf:PlainLiteral is a hilarious bad idea No, it is a good IDEA. Maybe not such a good proposal. The details might need a little work, though its hard to do it right because that would break SPARQL. Basically, if we had caught plain literals before SPAQL was set in stone, things would be a lot better, but they aren't, so some messiness is inevitable. > > Don't use it for anything and definitely don't put it into core RDF. > > If you want to know more - primarily because it cannot encode all RDF > plain/typed literals (it is incomplete just like RDF/XML) BUt it can do some things that current RDF cannot do, such as have typed literals with language tags, that are urgently needed out in the real world. > and has no rules > for escaping the characters used for separators (@, <, >). No need to escape the @ because it is used in a fixed position. Which is also ugly, but hey ho. Pat > Hilarious. > > Dave > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayesReceived on Monday, 2 November 2009 18:54:46 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:45:47 GMT