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

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

From: Martyn Horner <martyn.horner@profium.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 16:39:39 +0100
Message-ID: <3C6BDA3B.CD4ACD1A@profium.com>
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
CC: fmanola@mitre.org, 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?

Enter it (with suitable preamble) into Profium's online parser at
http://www.profium.com/gb/products/rdfdemo.shtml and you'll see we take
the `qualified literal' approach...literal('World Wide Web
Consortium','en'). It's just another opinion, I guess.

Martyn Horner <martyn.horner@profium.com>
Profium, Les Espaces de Sophia,
Immeuble Delta, B.P. 037, F-06901 Sophia-Antipolis, France
Tel. +33 (0) Fax. +33 (0)
Mob. +33 (0) Internet: http://www.profium.com
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 10:39:46 UTC

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