Re: lang tags on literals

The problem is that this requirement (even if it is a SHOULD) would create problems on the JSON-LD representation, which does not let you use a simple syntax for the language (as turtle does). Ie,

"body" : "simple textual body"

would become

"body" : {
	"text" : "simple textual body",
	"@language" : "en"
}

which is quite convoluted. And I am not sure how I would explain to a JSON-LD user why adding that "@language" term if "dc:language" is also used.

Ivan

> On 14 Sep 2015, at 10:20 , Vladimir Alexiev <vladimir.alexiev@ontotext.com> wrote:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#simple-textual-body and
> http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#embedded-textual-body
> don't avail themselves of the opportunity to use lang tags on the text
> literal, and instead use dc:language.
> 
> Using dc:language is a good practice, especially for resources that are not
> a simple text string.
> But I think that for strings, the language should be repeated as a lang tag
> for consistency & completeness.
> (This approach is adopted by Getty LOD, e.g. see
> http://vocab.getty.edu/doc/#Language_Dual_URLs)
> 
> So for http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#embedded-textual-body I
> propose:
> - after the phrase "additional properties such as dc:format and dc:language
> should be given if known"
> - add this sentence: "If the language is known, it should also be provided
> as a language tag on the string literal"
> - and add lang tag in the example:
>   rdf:value "content"@en ;
> 
> For http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#simple-textual-body, I would
> allow it to be used with a lang tag,
> which will extend this economical representation also for this case, but I
> don't feel strongly about it.
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704