One tiny detail that I want to confirm.

Hi,

It is rdf:plainLiteral not rdf:PlainLiteral, right?

Cheers,

Zhe



Jie Bao wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 28 May 2009 00:17:07 UTC