- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:27:03 +0000
- To: public-owl-dev@w3.org
- Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Hi OWL experts Quick Q: is OWL DL (or OWL 1.1 proposal for that matter) happy with the use of a single property, sometimes taking plain RDF literals, other times taking a datatyped literal. This spins off of the RDFa syntax design discussion, around topic of which idiom to make the default: one that makes markup into rdf:XMLLiteral or one that generates a plain form of rdfs:Literal instead. The former having an associated datatype URI, the latter instead carrying an optional language tag. Historically, for example, foaf:name has almost always been used with plain literals. I'm trying to understand the +/- of encouraging folk to use XMLLiteral within foaf:name and other literal-valued properties (versus using alternate properties with similar meaning, but designed for markup instead of strings). It occured to me that OWL DL might be unhappy with such an idiom. Am I being over-cautious? cheers, Dan
Received on Monday, 19 March 2007 13:28:43 UTC