- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:03:20 -0400
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 13:40 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > 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. I'm inclined to agree... On the procedural front, I think we'll have a few details to work through, but no real barriers. In particular, if we want to publish an updated version of the rdf:PlainLiteral spec, we'll have to figure out whether that should be done formally by the RDF WG or the RIF+OWL WGs, but since they still exist (but just dont have any work right now), either way should be okay. If we want to fold rdf:PlainLiteral into the main RDF 1.1 documents, I think we can do that, and make http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-plain-literal/ point to an explanation with a reference to the new definition. I think the important thing there is that the references from RIF and OWL to rdf:PlainLiteral still work properly, and that seems totally doable. (Although, if RDF WG can clean up plain literals enough, I think RIF and OWL might just be happy to go rip out rdf:PlainLiteral; but that's harder to predict.) -- Sandro
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 15:03:32 UTC