- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 20:10:28 +0100
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 13:14 14/05/2003 +0300, Jeremy Carroll wrote: [...] >[[ >A plain literal is a string combined with an optional language > identifier. This should not be used except for plain text > in a natural language. As recommended in the RDF formal semantics > [RDF-SEMANTICS], these plain literals are self-denoting. >]] I have a concern with this text. It seems to say that one prefer to use xsd:string over plain literals. Should it turn out that xsd:string and plain literal without a lang tag denote the same thing is there a good reason to press users to use the datatyped form with its attendant syntactic burden? Perhaps substitute 'may' for 'should'? [[ >A plain literal is a string combined with an optional language >identifier. These may be used for representing plain text in a natural >language. As recommend in the RDF formal semantics [RDF-SEMANTICS], these >plain literals are self-denoting. ]] Note also switched 'These may be used...' for 'This may be used...' Brian
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2003 15:10:04 UTC