use rdf:PlainLiteral instead of rdfs:Literal

[VladimirAlexiev]

A number of text fields use range rdfs:Literal, thus allowing either xsd:string or rdf:langString (good).
But this also allows datatyped literals, eg numbers or dates (bad).

Instead, use rdf:PlainLiteral, defined at https://w3.org/TR/rdf-plain-literal, which is exactly what's needed.

[eprocurementontology]

We will discuss this point when addressing the transformation of the UML to OWL in future evolutions.

[valexande]

Dear, @muricna can you give us your opinion on the following comment

We’ve got confirmation from @andreea-pasare that starting with the next release of EPO (v4.0.0, release candidate to come out in June) all references to rdfs:Literal type will be replaced with rdf:PlainLiteral .

Since rdf:PlainLiteral is a subclass of rdfs:Literal, and neither of them (nor rdf:langString) is explicitly mentioned in the TM, the best course of action would be to update the Master CM to refer to rdf:PlainLiteral instead of rdf:langString. This will be compatible with EPO v.3.1.0 (because of the implicit subtype relationship), but also forward compatible with EPO v.4.0.0.

we are asking this here, cause is related with optimizing the Conceptual Mapping

[muricna]

@valexande your question refers to https://github.com/OP-TED/ted-rdf-mapping please create a ticket in the correct github. Anyhow the reply is do not change the mappings that are correct for v3.1.0 to which we are mapping. Future mappings to future versions of the ontology will be discussed when such mappings are necessary.

[andreea-pasare]

Resolution to this discussion is mentioned in #405.
Closing this, since the remaining uncertainty is tracked under a different repository: OP-TED/ted-rdf-mapping#407.