- From: Damian Steer <pldms@mac.com>
- Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:17:31 +0000
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: Jie Bao <baojie@gmail.com>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, semantic-web@w3.org
Pat Hayes wrote: > > On Nov 2, 2009, at 9:53 AM, Damian Steer wrote: > >> Jie Bao wrote: >>> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote: >>>> So, what should W3C standardize next in the area of RDF, if anything? >>> >>> replace (with backward compatibility assurance) the use of plain >>> literals with rdf:PlainLiteral [1] - this datatype is defined in the >>> RDF namespace anyway. >> >> Yuck! I thought the idea was to improve RDF? >> > > That was my first reaction, but on reflection this really is a good > idea. ALL literals should have a datatype. Having plain literals in RDF > is a very clear example of premature optimization. So +1 to Jie. To be clear: I'd like all literals to have a datatype and the possibility of a language. I can't explain literals to people without uttering the phrase 'for some reason' (often concerning issues around xsd:string). However rdf:PlainLiteral is ugly. Damian
Received on Monday, 2 November 2009 17:18:26 UTC