- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 16:36:39 +0100
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 13/05/11 16:12, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > I'd like to add a paragraph somewhere that says, approximately: “A > datatype rdf:PlainLiteral has been defined in [THAT SPEC]. It's for > compatibility with systems that require everything to have a > datatype, or don't have anywhere to put a language tag, and hence > couldn't represent RDF graphs otherwise. An implementation that > supports real plain literals MUST use them and MUST NOT use > rdf:PlainLiteral.” > > Would that address your concern about mentioning equalities for > rdf:PlainLiteral? > > Or do you think it would be better not to mention rdf:PlainLiteral at > all in RDF Concepts? If it's not needed, then I prefer to not add it but that approximate text is OK - reiterate the fact it should not appear in RDF exhcnaged between systems. Generally, I think that adding a third form into the mix when none of them are complete solutions seems to be making it harder if/when a proper, complete solution in the future. I have no real evidence just a instinct that an extra form can only make migration harder later. Andy
Received on Friday, 13 May 2011 15:37:13 UTC