W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > March 2011

[MISC] Deprecation (was Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs])

From: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 07:46:06 -0500
Message-ID: <20110307.074606.2054400512299594987.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: <steve.harris@garlik.com>
CC: <richard@cyganiak.de>, <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Subject: Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs]
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 17:03:22 -0600

> On 2011-03-05, at 14:49, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> 
>> On 4 Mar 2011, at 21:59, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>> RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs]
>> 
>> Anyone could trivially define such datatypes. And once that is done, tool vendors could easily add support for them.
>> 
>> Given the relative ease of doing this, if there was actual user demand for such datatypes, then surely someone would have already defined them, and they would have seen some adoption.
>> 
>> It is my strong belief that standardization efforts should focus on codifying existing practice and not invent new speculative things.
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> rdf:XMLLiteral is kind of in this space, and no one really uses that,
> let alone an RDF version. 
> 
> - Steve

Agreed.

In fact, in my opinion rdf:XMLLiteral would be a good candidate for
deprecation.

I wonder whether it would be possible to have someone (not me) do a
search of extant RDF to see how much use there is of various bits of
RDF (including various bits of the RDF/XML syntax).


peter
Received on Monday, 7 March 2011 12:47:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:03 UTC