- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:37:20 +0100
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 20 Jun 2011, at 13:40, Andy Seaborne wrote: > I'm glad to hear that because your original message said (my emphasis): > > [[ > Given that the *term* “plain literal” is likely to be removed from the abstract syntax". > ]] You are right, I didn't phrase that very well. >> At any rate, I take your message as a vote that the class containing >> all xsd:strings and all language-tagged strings should be called >> rdf:PlainLiteral as it reflects established terminology. > > No, it is not such a vote. > > rdf:PlainLiteral is a datatype. It says so in the title > of the document. > > rdf:PlainLiteral is not established terminology in RDF data. > > The spliting of datatype and class here, in particular, is not established. Ok, I understand what your position is. > Until we have a decision on language tag literals, I don't see much value in discussing rdf:PlainLiteral unless the design of rdf:PlainLiteral is supposed to influence that decision. The design of rdf:PlainLiteral *may* influence whether our resolutions are acceptable to the RIF and OWL WGs. Thus, a resolution that offers a coherent story on how to deal with rdf:PlainLiteral is preferable. This is why I would like to know whether W3C process places any restrictions on what we can do about the rdf:PlainLiteral spec. Best, Richard
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 14:37:49 UTC