RE: Datatyping, rdf:type inappropriate

Regarding terminology that is easiest to parse, and also in the
interest of a clear distinction between the datatyping vocabulary
from other RDF/S vocabulary, I propose the following:

  xmlns:rdfd="http://www.w3.org/2002/rdf-datatyping/"

  rdfd:type

  rdfd:Datatype


Thus:

  <age rdfd:type="&xsd;integer">10</age>

giving

  ?s age xsd:integer"10" .

and

  <age rdfd:type="&xsd;integer"></age>

giving

  ?s age xsd:integer"" .

(and probably generating a warning)

and

  xsd:integer rdf:type rdfd:Datatype .

etc.

Would that be better?

User's simply have to keep straight the namespace, whether
they are working with datatypes rather than "plain" RDF
types, and choose rdfd:type over rdf:type accordingly.

[And BTW, it's 'datatyping' not 'datatypes' since we are
defining the machinery for the process of datatyping, not 
defining a set of datatypes themselves]

Patrick