Re: Reject change to rdf:value

Dave Beckett wrote:
> 
> >>>Graham Klyne said:
> > I think Aaron said it better.  I don't think this is an issue that should
> > be postponed.
> 
> The issue http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-replace-value
> is recorded as:
>   Suggestion that the rdf:value property be replaced by rdf:toString.
> 
> So I propose that:
>   We reject this suggestion as an unnecessary change
>   ACTION the model theory editor (Pat) to explain what rdf:value means
>   ACTION the primer editor (Eric) to ensure that a description of
>          how to use rdf:value is included.
> 
> Are there any objections to this form of words?

Yes. Datatyping and rdf:value are still subject of discussion. I'd
reword the first ACTION as: to propose an interpretation of rdf:value
for discussion by WG (to my knowledge, Pat is working on it already).

Sergey