Re: renaming rdf:text to rdf:plainLiteral and other issues with the proposal

Peter F.Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> However, and this is a very big caveat, I really don't want the design
> of RDF changed in response to this new datatype, as has been proposed.
> If having the datatype in the rdf namespace requires a design change,
> then I think that it would be much better to just have an OWL datatype
> for this purpose.
>

I see in the poll that I am in minority here:-( but I have the
impression that the whole discussion was largely started by the fact
that we introduced something in the RDF namespace and therefore a number
of people considered this (whether right or wrong) as something having
an effect on RDF design. Ie, I still believe we should stay away from
the RDF namespace but, as we seem to say in the group, I will not lie
down the road over this:-)

Ivan


> I'm even becoming very worried about the requirement to avoid literals
> with this datatype in RDF graphs.  So far, I'm willing to go along with
> this, but the continued changes to this aspect of the proposal are
> troubling to me.  In particular, the rationale for the prohibition is
> completely bogus.
> 
> peter
> 

-- 

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