Re: (poll) renaming rdf:text to rdf:plainLiteral

There also seemed to be a separate proposal to make the 
datatype-formerly-known-as-rdf:text be disjoint from xsd:string, i.e. 
only represent plain literals with language tags.

Presumably by adopting the name "rdf:plainLiteral" we would be rejecting 
that other suggestion.

OK with me either way, the separation proposal had some slight appeal to 
me but it's no big deal, just wanted to clear that's what's being proposed.

Dave

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
>

Received on Saturday, 23 May 2009 11:08:03 UTC