Move datatypes definitions to RDF-Schema?

[pchampin]

RDF-Concepts is defining 3 datatypes: rdf:HTML, rdf:XMLLiteral and rdf:JSON.

Those datatypes are not, per-se, part of the data model / abstract syntax. I believe it would make sense to move their description in the RDF-Schema document, which over time, has turned into the human-readable documentation of the whole rdf: and rdfs: vocabularies.

In fact, there are already entries for rdf:HTML, rdf:XMLLiteral (very terse ones, though).

[gkellogg]

should be resolved before CR

[pfps]

I think this is a not a great idea. RDF Schema provides a readable version of information present in other documents, notably Semantics but does not provide any definitions or normative semantics. These bits of Concepts define the three datatypes and thus belong in Concepts, along with the definitions of RDF graphs, etc.

But I'm not going to complain if the move is done.

[afs]

RDF Schema is more than that.

The "Other Vocabulary" section has containers and collections.
RDF Concepts has "Additional Datatypes" (an appendix) in the same vain.
The logic to me is that concepts has the required parts. rdf:HTML, rdf:XMLLiteral, rdf:JSON are not required.

[w3cbot]

This was discussed during the #rdf-star meeting on 07 August 2025.

[pfps]

If these three are moved then the xml: datatypes should be moved as well.

[domel]

Which part should be precisely moved? I can prepare a PR in RDF Schema.

[pchampin]

This was discussed during the #rdf-star meeting on 07 August 2025.

I indicated at the end of the discussion that I was willing to close this issue without any change. There were some pushback and I don't feel strongly about this anyway. I'd rather move RDF-Concepts to CR earlier than wait until we reach consensus on this.

Also, this refactoring of the documents can still be done during maintenance, I guess...

[pchampin]

I suggest to remove the label ms:CR and add ms:future-work.