On 2002-03-15 18:06, "ext Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net> wrote: > From: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com> > >>> Jenny ex:age _:x . >>> _:x rdfs:dlex "35" . >>> _:x rdfs:lang "en_US" . >> >> I'm not sure if attaching the language property to >> the same node as the rdfs:dlex is correct. I >> would think that the language is qualifying the lexical >> form, not the thing denoted by the lexical form. > > I would think that the the language is qualifying the *use* of the lexical > form (not the lexical for itself) .. in other words what the the bnode > denotes is (the lexical form interperted in that language). We dont need no > extra bnode. Well, if you're qualifying usage, then perhaps you should reify the dlex statement and define the language as a scope property for the reification (stating) ;-) In any case, I don't consider the integer value 35 to be "US English". The rdfs:lang property does should not attach to the _:x node. Where it belongs is still an open question, but it doesn't modify the actual integer value -- which exists independent of any particular lexical representation that might be qualified for language. And in any case, this is a bad example, as language does not apply to lexical representations of integers anyway... Cheers, Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.comReceived on Monday, 18 March 2002 09:18:21 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 18:22:12 GMT