Re: open concepts issues - proposals for xmlsch-05 and xsmlsch-06

At 13:14 14/05/2003 +0300, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
[...]

>[[
>A plain literal is a string combined with an optional language
>         identifier. This should not be used except for plain text
>         in a natural language. As recommended in the RDF formal semantics
>         [RDF-SEMANTICS], these plain literals are self-denoting.
>]]

I have a concern with this text.  It seems to say that one prefer to use 
xsd:string over plain literals.  Should it turn out that xsd:string and 
plain literal without a lang tag denote the same thing is there a good 
reason to press users to use the datatyped form with its attendant 
syntactic burden?

Perhaps substitute 'may' for 'should'?

[[
>A plain literal is a string combined with an optional language 
>identifier.  These may be used for representing plain text in a natural 
>language.  As recommend in the RDF formal semantics [RDF-SEMANTICS], these 
>plain literals are self-denoting.
]]

Note also switched 'These may be used...' for 'This may be used...'

Brian