Mikael said:
> The problem with introducing simultaneous data typing and
> language tagging is that the RDF constructs become much more
> complex... and I think we're already pushing the limit of
> what complexity people will endure for DC metadata...
Douglas said:
> Sure, though I guess I'd like the option for those who need it.
(I changed the subject line as it seems to me this is - in the first
instance - a DCAM issue, rather than an issue with the draft document)
(And I agree with Mikael that the DCAM needs a better definition of
"rich representation", and probably of "value string" too).
In the DCAM, datatypes/"syntax encoding schemes" are applied only to
"value strings". And "value strings" exclude those literals which in RDF
are called XML Literals. i.e. "syntax encoding schemes" in the DCAM
correspond (I think?) to "simple types" in XML Schema.
For "value strings", I'm not sure I understand what it would mean to use
a "language tag" and a "syntax encoding scheme" in combination - the
DCAM does currently allow that as a possibility, but (I think) that's
probably an error in the DCAM.
In the DCAM, what RDF calls XML Literals are (a subset of) what the DCAM
calls "rich representations". So whereas in RDF XML Literals are a
subset of typed literals, the DCAM treats them as a separate construct
in the model.
So I think the question is not whether language tag and syntax encoding
scheme can be combined, but whether rich representations (or rather the
subset of rich representations which correspond to XML Literals) should
carry an external language tag. _If_ it was decided that they should and
we change the DCAM to reflect that, then we'd have to work out how to
map that into the RDF model (and it seems to me, as Mikael said here, it
could get complex).
Hmmm, yes, I'm aware I risk being accused of "double standards" in
saying, on the one hand, that the RDF mapping doesn't need to support a
permutation which is currently in the DCAM, and on the other, it doesn't
need to support another permutation because that isn't currently in the
DCAM! ;-)
Pete
|