I said (regarding representation of xml:lang in RDF)
> This appears to be a current issue for the RDF Core WG. See
>
> http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-xmllang
Dave Beckett said:
> Yes, if the DC community has some feedback, let me/us know. We (RDF
> Core WG) are likely to try to get this resolved soon.
Dave (and/or other RDF Core folks),
Could you provide any pointers to what is the current thinking within
the RDF Core WG to how the language issue should be best addressed
please? I'm afraid I found it rather difficult from scanning the RDF
Core WG mailing list to get a clear picture of exactly what was being
suggested. Or is it still under debate?
Following the link to Tim Berners-Lee's message "raising the issue"
(from the URL above), I find a link to
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/InterpretationProperties
Not at all sure I've absorbed this yet, but if I'm reading it correctly,
it seems to me the approach described in the current DCQ in RDF document
http://dublincore.org/documents/2001/11/30/dcq-rdf-xml/#sec4
(the "Poor man's language qualification" in 4.2.1), which I think I'd
got my head round and learned to love, corresponds to a case of
Berners-Lee's "Attempt 2", which he appears to suggest is not quite the
way to go?
Is my reading of that correct? Will the RDF Core WG be making a
recommendation suggesting a different approach please?
Thanks
Pete
-------
Pete Johnston
Interoperability Research Officer
UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK
tel: +44 (0)1225 383619 fax: +44 (0)1225 386838
mailto:[log in to unmask]
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/p.johnston/
|