Re: adding PlainLiteral to the document at http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns

>From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-text/2009AprJun/0329.html
and quoted in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-text/2009AprJun/0331.html 

*********************************

From: Peter F.Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 15:44:50 -0400
Message-ID: <20090603.154450.149383146.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: <sandro@w3.org>
CC: <public-rdf-text@w3.org>

rdf:PlainLiteral rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .

should be sufficient.

peter

PS:  If you want to fit into the document a bit better, try

<rdfs:Datatype
rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#PlainLiteral">
  <rdfs:subClassOf
  rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Literal"/>
  <rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"/>
  <rdfs:label>Plain Literal</rdfs:label>
  <rdfs:comment>The class of RDF plain literal values.</rdfs:comment>
</rdfs:Datatype>

*********************************

Why is the rdfs:isDefinedBy bit above insufficient to satisfy

> Would be ok, and possibly better to use rdfs:isDefinedBy.

peter



From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: adding PlainLiteral to the document at http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 15:37:54 -0500

> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote:
> 
>> Maybe there could be a seeAlso linking to the spec? I don't know.
> 
> +1
> 
> Would be ok, and possibly better to use rdfs:isDefinedBy.
> 
> Speaking with linked data consumer hat on, I'd say having one of the
> two is essential.
> 
> -Alan

Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2009 21:48:39 UTC