> On Wed 12-Mar-2003 at 05:12:50PM +0100, Thomas Baker wrote:
> > The modeling issue is whether it makes sense to qualify the
> > literal "2003-03-12" with "en-US", and Jon seems to confirm what I
> > had suspected -- that it doesn't really "make sense"...
> My fear would be that it might give the impression that the
> following is OK and that these are the same date...
> <dc:date xml:lang="en-US">11-09-2001</dc:date>
> <dc:date xml:lang="en-UK">09-11-2001</dc:date>
> I realise that we (the people on this list) won't get confused about
> this (we all know that only W3CDTF dates are valid)
but other people
> might get the impression that the xml:lang attribute makes a
> difference to the date format...
People on this list should be confused about, for they know, that untyped
literal are language sensitive and therefore RDF databases
may treat the literals as different.
The only way to escape is additional datatyping - hopefully RDF continues
to declare xml:lang irrelevant in the presence of a datatype.
> Chris Croome <[log in to unmask]>
> web design http://www.webarchitects.co.uk/
> web content management http://mkdoc.com/
> everything else http://chris.croome.net/