On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 16:14, Wagner,Harry wrote:

> 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?

If it is asked to present all Swedish items, will that date be included
or not? There is really nothing english about this string at all.

> We should be consistent with our use of xml:lang.  If the property value is
> a literal we should use it.

I'm not sure I follow this line of argument. Suppose we have a property
pic:width with a value of Literal "10". What language is it?

We must indeed be consistent in using xml:lang. And the definition of
xml:lang includes natural language, which "2001-10-03" clearly is not
intended to include. This Literal is not a date, it's a Literal-encoding
of a date, and that encoding is supposed to be W3CDTF.

The literal "Oct. 3, 2001" is an english natural language description of
a date, however. This interpretation should in my opinion not be left to
the application, but instead be encoded by using typed literals.

Thus, an argument such as "if the property value is a *plain* literal we
should use xml:lang" might possibly be more correct!


Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose