- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:39:06 +0200
- To: ext Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- CC: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, ext Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
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