- From: Martyn Horner <martyn.horner@profium.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 16:39:39 +0100
- 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)4.93.95.31.44 Fax. +33 (0)4.93.95.52.58 Mob. +33 (0)6.21.01.54.56 Internet: http://www.profium.com
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 10:39:46 UTC