(catching up) On 2 Apr 2011, at 19:54, Hugh Glaser wrote: >> 1. xsd:string in RDF must die. It's one of those completely and utterly >> useless pieces of rubbish that litter the RDF specs. > > Perhaps you could tell us what you really think :-) >> > >> 2. If you publish in multiple languages, then perhaps it's a good idea to >> include a plain literal in a “default language” without a language tag, to >> make SPARQLing easy. > > So I would guess from this that it could be that some documents could be > adjusted to recommend this sort of thing. > Certainly for 2; is it the case for 1 that technically there should be a type?
The first issue is on the agenda of the new RDF WG: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/12 With the second issue it's not so clear what to do about it. It's a question of good practice, and I'm not aware of any document where that recommendation could be easily added. Best, Richard
