- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 17:03:07 +0100
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 14/07/11 08:36, Antoine Zimmermann wrote: > In your proposal, rdf:Text is equivalent to rdf:PlainLiteral so it seems > redundent. > Moreover, rdf:PlainLiteral was originally called rdf:text (see > http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-rdf-text-20090421/ for instance) but this > name was rejected because the concept of "text" includes many other > features like directionality, font, structure, etc. I don't think it's equivalent because by using a definition named by IRI, you are buying into using everything about definition. We can't pick some of the rdf:PlainLiteral definition and not also introduce the rest of the spec. rdf:PlainLiteral is a datatype and has a lexical space. By using it, we pull in the use of "foo@"^^rdf:PlainLiteral. I do agree "text" can also apply to various aspects - but I can't think of an alternative name best is rdf:TextString but that still says "text". Andy
Received on Saturday, 16 July 2011 16:03:38 UTC