LOM currently uses the rdf:value approach, but we're considering moving
to using rdf datatypes for most cases, mostly because they are simply
much more easy to manage, while no information gets lost. It makes it
possible to avoid using two different graph layouts in differenct uses
of the same property, which is *very* helpful.
It's currently not clear what DC is going to do, however, so we don't
know how to be compatible :-(
I am supposing that DC will move to using rdf datatypes for encoding
schemes in the "long" run, though.
On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 14:15, Wagner,Harry wrote:
> > > My point was simply that an application should not need to be this
> > > intelligent... encoded text should use a Datatype, and the
> > application
> > > can be made to understand relevant datatypes.
> > Do you mean an RDF datatype or DC encoding scheme? I'm curious what
> > you've done since there are multiple ways to do this and it would be
> > good to know from experience what works.
> I think the key phrase here is "should use a Datatype", and I agree they
> should. Unfortunately, more often that not, they do not. We plan to remove
> the xml:lang attribute for the literals that are not naural-language text.
> There is a simple workaround for the registry.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose