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

On 2002-02-13 14:37, "ext Frank Manola" <fmanola@mitre.org> wrote:

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

You could say "language appears to be non-existent, insofar as many
applications, discussions, examples, etc. fail to represent it in
any recognisable fashion"

I'm not saying "language does not belong in the graph" or "language
should not exist in the graph" or "M&S does not say language is in
the graph" all of which are possible interpretations of the quote
you propose attributing to me.

:-)

Patrick

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com

Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 07:37:46 UTC