- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 00:49:55 -0400
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-rif-wg@w3.org, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Maybe we can get the XML Schema folks to put it in that namespace. After all, much of the motivation is to make it sit with equal standing among the rest of the XML Schema datatypes. -Alan On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > One step further: why having this thing in the rdf namespace? I must admit I > was always a bit uneasy about using the rdf namespace for that in the past, > but I accepted. But it started as a 'thing' that seemed to be a common need > for RIF and OWL, and we may want to keep it that way. > > It could be in the OWL or the RIF namespace or has a namespace of its own. > > Just and idea... > > Ivan > > Sandro Hawke wrote: >> >> It seems like most of the furor over rdf:text has been caused by some >> misunderstandings about its intended role. One of the proposals to help >> clarify its role has been to rename it from rdf:text to >> rdf:plainLiteral. The idea behind this name is to help underscore that >> it is exactly equivalent (mapping 1-1) to "RDF Plain Literals" [1]. It >> is not something else, something new, different, or useful in it's own >> right. It's just a standard way for systems to handle RDF Plain >> Literals as XML datatype values. Systems can use it if it makes it >> easier for them, working with RDF data outside of RDF graphs (as in RIF >> and OWL 2). Within RDF graphs, by definition, there is direct support >> of RDF Plain Literals. >> >> The original renaming proposal [2] was from Axel, and so far everyone >> who has talked about it on public-rdf-text seems supportive of it. >> Before we (that is, Boris) actually edit(s) that spec to make the name >> change, we wanted to do a quick check to see if anyone has a problem >> with this. Obviously, we'll also need to make the name change in >> various other documents. I know it's a bit of a hassle, but try reading >> a day of the rdf-text mailing list; you'll start to see why a change >> like this starts to seem cheap and easy. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> -- Sandro >> >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#dfn-plain-literal >> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-text/2009AprJun/0148 >> > > -- > > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html > FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf >
Received on Saturday, 23 May 2009 04:51:05 UTC