- From: Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>
- Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 01:23:26 -0400
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Please forgive my recent silence on rdf:text issues, though I have been watching the discussion. I'm supportive for the renaming if it serves the purpose of reducing misunderstanding (which has been a haunting problem ever since the beginning...) Jie On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> 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 > > -- Jie Bao http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~baojie
Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2009 05:24:00 UTC