> In this case, does the literal "2003-03-12" fit into "en-US", or
> is that an example of a squeeze...?
If we don't assign an xml:lang attribute to all literals, then how do you
propose applicaitons, such as the registry, differentiate between
natural-language style literals and non-natural-language style literals?
When asked to display information about a term in a specific language how
would the application know to display literals that happen to be dates?
We should be consistent with our use of xml:lang. If the property value is
a literal we should use it.
> > > 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.
If we would not use dc:type for this then I have a difficult time imagining
what we would use it for. It seems a perfect fit to me.