- From: Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:07:55 -0400
- To: public-rdf-text@w3.org
There is an unplanned emergence meeting I have to attend right now. Sorry for missing the meeting today. I will check the irc log for summary. Jie On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org> wrote: > Let me attempt to summarize what "is left" from last time and where we > seemed (from my point of view) to agree... this should give us kind of an > agenda for today. > > best, > Axel > ------------- > > Summarizing starting points for today: > > 1) We seemed to agree last time on the following: > > *) One datatype rdf:text > > *) value space for rdf:text: > > pairs such that the first argument of the pair is a Unicode string > and the second one is a valid language tag following > http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4646.txt > > *) lexical space (notation in presentation syntax): > > "string@tag"^^rdf:text > > rather than > > (string, tag)^^rdf:text > > with shortcut notation: > > "string"@tag > > 2) We seemed to agree last time that subtag matching according to RFC4647 > can be done by built-ins in RIF and datatype facets in OWL: > > - for RIF this means a builtin: > > pred:matches-langtag( arg1 , arg2 ) > > intended domains: > - arg1 rdf:text > - arg2 valid language range according to > http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4647.txt > > - for OWL this means: > > ??? Jie to elaborate on datatype-facets in OWL. > > > 3) Issue 1: What about "subtypes" which cannot be determined by sub-pattern > matching? > > "art-lojban" and "jbo" > "zh-cmn" or "cmn" or "zh" > > see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0288.html > > > 4) Issue 2: xs:string > > did we agree on here xs:string is located here, i.e. whether it should be > the subtype od rdf:text with an empty lang-tag? > > Note that would mean that > > "blabla"^^xs:string is syntactic sugar for "blabla@"^^rdf:text, > > What about "blabla" (aka plain literal in RDF)? is this also a shortcut for > "blabla@"^^rdf:text? > > > 5) Issue 3: Whether to supersede RFC 3066 (the one used by RDF and currently > by RIF) with RFC 4646 (Tags for Identifying Languages) ... > I kind of imagine tat I sensed last time agreement towards the newer spec > RFC4646, would that cause trouble wrt 3066 upwards-compatibility? Kind of > similar to the "plain literals" issue 2 above. >
Received on Monday, 11 August 2008 17:08:31 UTC