Re: vocab proposal: language of annotation (i18n support)

On Sat, 5 May 2001, Matthew Wilson wrote:

> At 06:00 01/05/01 -0400, Dan Brickley wrote:
>
> >(Just a quick note to capture an idea that cropped up over lunch with Marja)
> >
> >Our XML/RDF annotation vocabularies should capture the language primarily
> >used in any textual content within the annotation. For eg., as a
> >dc:language property of the annotation.
>
> Would current clients break if we started posting annotations with
> dc:language properties straightaway? Or should we wait until such a usage
> is officially sanctioned?

Sensible RDF applications should always "expect the unexpected", ie.
not be suprised to find a variety of additional pieces of data
("annotations", in a broad sense of the term) decorating RDF graphs. From
what I know of the 3 Annotea clients, they should all be OK with
additional properties attached to an annotation, since they use an RDF
parser rather than match against hard-coded XML encodings of the data
structure.

Dan