Re: rdfms-xmllang: a proposal

[...]
> > We identified 3 use cases requiring language support:
> >
> >   Martyn's
> >   Jan's
> >   OCLC's
> >
> > Of these Martyn's did not consider representation of language in a literal
> > to be important.  The other two found the M&S specification of language as
> > part of a literal to be useful and adequate for their needs.
> 
> Really? they found it useful?
> I thought the OCLC folks got their job done
> without using xml:lang.

My mistake - that should have read Eric's Dublin Core use case, not OCLC.

Brian

Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2001 14:10:22 UTC