Move datatypes definitions in 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 bad 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.

[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.