On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Richard Cyganiak <[email protected]> wrote: > That's a good point. The problem is that xsd:string is too narrow and > rdfs:Literal is too broad. RDF 1.1 is likely to define a class of all string > literals (tagged and untagged), we'll use that when its name has been > settled, and perhaps just leave the inaccurate xsd:string in place for now.
There already exists such a type that is a W3C recommendation. It is called rdf:PlainLiteral - see http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-plain-literal/ I'm not sure why RDF 1.1 working group is not aware of that. -Alan
