Re: rdf:PlainLiteral

On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 08:20:36AM -0400, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> 
> What do folks think of Michael's proposal?  I should probably forward it
> to public-rif-wg if other folks are okay with it.  In particular, Axel
> and Pat...  FWIW, I support it.  I understand that lowercase is used by
> XSD, but Michael right about, eg rdf:XMLLiteral.

+1
i agree that PlainLiteral is a better name; i'm ambivalent about
bothereing to fix it.

>      -- Sandro
> 

Content-Description: forwarded message
> Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 13:54:07 +0200
> From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
> Subject: RE: (poll) renaming rdf:text to rdf:plainLiteral
> To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
> Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org, public-owl-wg@w3.org
> Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A00141373D@judith.fzi.de>
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
> >On Behalf Of Sandro Hawke
> >Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2009 5:33 AM
> >To: public-rif-wg@w3.org; public-owl-wg@w3.org
> >Subject: (poll) renaming rdf:text to rdf:plainLiteral
> >
> >
> >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].  
> 
> Ok, and not too much stressing of the "internationalized" aspect anymore,
> since this seemed to be one major point by some people, IIRC.
> 
> I have no issues with the RDF namespace (otherwise I would have raised 
> them before). However, I would like to see the thing be called 
> 
>   "rdf:PlainLiteral"
> 
> with a capital "P". I believe, for RDF people, the message will then be 
> clearer that this is the distinguished sub /class/ of rdfs:Literal that 
> exactly captures all the plain literals (wasn't Pat Hayes talking about
> a specific class?). Perhaps, this will make it more likely to be 
> supported by a future RDF WG to make it a real built-in of RDF(S), which
> would be a win, especially since we are "re-using" the rdf: namespace. 
> Also, there is rdf:XMLLiteral, instead of rdf:xmlLiteral, so this naming 
> scheme has some precedence in RDF.
> 
> Best,
> Michael
> 



> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009May/

-- 
-eric

office: +1.617.258.5741 32-G528, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA
mobile: +1.617.599.3509

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.