Re: What can/should/must we do with rdf:PlainLiteral?

Thanks Sandro, that's good to know.

Richard


On 20 Jun 2011, at 16:03, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> 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 16:49:59 UTC