On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 02:08:05PM -0000, Jon Hanna wrote:
> > In the past, I believe we used xml:lang for the literals
> > that represent a natural language like English or Spanish.
> > I'm curious, is it generally considered good practice to use
> > xml:lang for literals in a broader sense?
> When doing so is meaningful it is good practice. "Squeezing" literals into a
> language isn't.
In this case, does the literal "2003-03-12" fit into "en-US", or
is that an example of a squeeze...?
> > Or using RDF itself
> > (http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type)...?
> It seems to me that dc:type should be a subPropertyOf rdf:type. I can't
> think of any counter-examples.
If dc:type is more specific than rdf:type, it is not clear to
me whether that extra specificity is really helpful in this
case, where it is being used to point to the type of a term
-- which happens to be how the term rdf:type is (more often)
used in RDF schemas.
Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask]
Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven mobile +49-160-9664-2129
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft work +49-30-8109-9027
53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax +49-2241-144-2352