On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Dave Beckett <dave@dajobe.org> 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 > > 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) and has no rules > for escaping the characters used for separators (@, <, >). Hilarious. Where did you get that idea? That's simply incorrect. The case of @ is explicitly shown as an example in the table. "<" and ">" are not delimiters for rdf:plainLiteral. In existing RDF syntaxes the serialization is the same as already exists for xsd:string and plain literals. I'm not advocating that it be introduced into standard RDF syntax, btw, but don't like to let this sort of mistake stand. -Alan > > Dave > > >Received on Tuesday, 3 November 2009 02:02:58 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:45:47 GMT