W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > January 2014

RE: Language Tag Case Conflict (between RDF1.1 and BCP47)

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 18:08:05 +0100
To: "'Richard Cyganiak'" <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: "'RDF Working Group WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <011e01cf1602$3010b260$90321720$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Monday, January 20, 2014 3:41 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> This is clearly not an editorial change.
> A change to a "MAY" statement *is* a change to RDF.

What would it change? In this case it would just make implicit knowledge
explicit (the fact that implementations might format language tags as
described in BCP47). I can see how a lot of people might wonder why we
"ignored" BCP47's recommendation given that we cite it. That being said, I
really don't care much about this as it doesn't change anything in practice.

> Adding informative text (e.g., in a Note) would be considered a
> clarification, and hence not a change to the language itself. It would
> still be more than an editorial fix.
> The AC members are currently reviewing the RDF 1.1 specs and are
> encouraged to indicate their support (or lack thereof) for sending the
> documents to REC. Does this process, in theory, still provide Ontotext
> with an opportunity to object to the current design, request a change,
> or whatever? Not that we want to encourage such behaviour; it's just
> that we should mention all the options provided by the process before
> we reply that it's too late to change anything now.

I don't think so but the director will certainly take the comment into
consideration when deciding whether to approve the PR-REC transition.

Markus Lanthaler
Received on Monday, 20 January 2014 17:08:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:18 UTC