RE: Type of (the denotation of) a plain literal

[...]

> We have also not assigned a datatype or an rdfs class for the class of
all
> untyped literals. I believe this to be a minor error that we may wish to
> consider fixing at some point. (It makes it difficult to state certain
range
> constraints.)

indeed a minor point and a while back in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Dec/0244.html
we felt that need to do the testcases and assumed
rdfs:PlainLiteral rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Literal
but rdfs:PlainLiteral *not* a rdfs:Datatype


-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/