RE: A summary of the proposal for resolving the issues with rdf:text --> Could you please check it one more time?

> > OK, so my reading of rdf:text was not mistaken then.
> >
> > Yes, I was very surprised when I read the rdf:text draft that this
> > wasn't actually what was done, I just sort of assumed it was, since
> it
> > seems rather sensible, allowing RIF and OWL2 to be used better over
> > RDF data.
> 
> I haven't really been able to follow what you've been saying, but, yes,
> of course RIF and OWL2 can (in all designs considerd) be used over RDF
> data with plain literals (and the plain literals are interpreted as
> rdf:text literals).  If the specs were ambiguous about this, I'm sure
> it's because it never occured to us that someone might imagine it
> otherwise.
> 
>      -- Sandro

A further issue is whether rdf:text can occur as a datatype in an RDF/XML document.
If it can, then there is a further syntactic form semantically equivalent to a plain literal.
If rdf:text is explicitly prohibited from being in an RDF/XML document then it forces the users of rdf:text to be aware of the required serialization as a plain literal, and ensures backward compatibility

Jeremy