W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2002

Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ]

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 07:37:01 -0500
Message-ID: <3C6A5DED.6010107@mitre.org>
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
CC: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, ext Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Patrick Stickler wrote:

> On 2002-02-12 20:28, "ext Frank Manola" <fmanola@mitre.org> wrote:
>>Patrick says the language is non-existent in the
>>RDF graph.
> Insofar as most examples, representations, DT discussions, etc. I.e. that
> based on most materials and discussions, it seems to be a rather common
> view that literals are simple strings. I've yet to see a single example
> where the literal was represented as a string-language pairing.
> Clearly, some implementations do treat literals as pairings.
> It was stated that ARP does this, but if I enter
>   <dc:title xml:lang="en">World Wide Web Consortium</dc:title>
> in the W3C RDF validator, I don't see 'en' reflected in either the
> triples or the graph. Is it then optional functionality not used
> by the validator? Or is that functionality in a later version of ARP
> than what is used by the validator?
> (this isn't a criticism or refutation, just an honest question)


Could I sum up what you just said by saying "Patrick says the language 
is non-existent in the RDF graph"?  :-)


Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 07:32:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:10 UTC