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

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Peter F.Patel-Schneider
<pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> 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 17:23:44 -0500
>
>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Peter F.Patel-Schneider
>> <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
>>> <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
>>
>> Because there is no link to the specification. If I encountered this
>> piece of rdf, I wouldn't know where to find something a human could
>> read to understand what it's about. Speaking as a linked data
>> consumer.
>>
>> -Alan
>
> So you want to do something *more* for rdf:PlainLiteral than is done for
> any of the rest of the RDF vocabulary at
> http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns.

Yes. I would do it for the other terms too, but that's out of scope.
Also all the other terms are defined in the RDF documentation, which
is a common starting point. This term is not.

> Of course, I know how to find out something a human can read to
> understand what a piece of W3C stuff is about.  It's called Googling.

The LOD movement sees a use for browsing rdf documents and presenting
useful information to what they browse. While that isn't *my* primary
use case, I try to support their need since it costs so little.
Usually.

-Alan


>
> peter
>

Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2009 22:35:05 UTC