- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 09:00:22 +0200
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-rif-wg@w3.org, public-owl-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4A179F06.8090708@w3.org>
Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > Maybe we can get the XML Schema folks to put it in that namespace. > After all, much of the motivation is to make it sit with equal > standing among the rest of the XML Schema datatypes. I would not go there. It leads to major coordination problems and, frankly, their hands are probably full with their own. Ivan > -Alan > > On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >> One step further: why having this thing in the rdf namespace? I must admit I >> was always a bit uneasy about using the rdf namespace for that in the past, >> but I accepted. But it started as a 'thing' that seemed to be a common need >> for RIF and OWL, and we may want to keep it that way. >> >> It could be in the OWL or the RIF namespace or has a namespace of its own. >> >> Just and idea... >> >> Ivan >> >> Sandro Hawke wrote: >>> It seems like most of the furor over rdf:text has been caused by some >>> misunderstandings about its intended role. One of the proposals to help >>> clarify its role has been to rename it from rdf:text to >>> rdf:plainLiteral. The idea behind this name is to help underscore that >>> it is exactly equivalent (mapping 1-1) to "RDF Plain Literals" [1]. It >>> is not something else, something new, different, or useful in it's own >>> right. It's just a standard way for systems to handle RDF Plain >>> Literals as XML datatype values. Systems can use it if it makes it >>> easier for them, working with RDF data outside of RDF graphs (as in RIF >>> and OWL 2). Within RDF graphs, by definition, there is direct support >>> of RDF Plain Literals. >>> >>> The original renaming proposal [2] was from Axel, and so far everyone >>> who has talked about it on public-rdf-text seems supportive of it. >>> Before we (that is, Boris) actually edit(s) that spec to make the name >>> change, we wanted to do a quick check to see if anyone has a problem >>> with this. Obviously, we'll also need to make the name change in >>> various other documents. I know it's a bit of a hassle, but try reading >>> a day of the rdf-text mailing list; you'll start to see why a change >>> like this starts to seem cheap and easy. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> -- Sandro >>> >>> >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#dfn-plain-literal >>> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-text/2009AprJun/0148 >>> >> -- >> >> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >> mobile: +31-641044153 >> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html >> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf >> -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Saturday, 23 May 2009 07:01:01 UTC