W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2002

RE: Outstanding Issues - rdfms-xmllang

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:16:19 -0000
To: <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <w3c-i18n-wg@w3.org>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CEECKEAMDAJDDEDGJNBEOEBJCAAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

Can we go for the 9.00 am slot on Tuesday.
We're hoping for about an hour (i.e the RDF people).
You may be able to better estimate it.

Jeremy

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
Misha.Wolf@reuters.com
Sent: 21 February 2002 14:37
To: Brian McBride
Cc: w3c-i18n-wg@w3.org; w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Outstanding Issues - rdfms-xmllang



Plase refer to:
  http://www.w3.org/International/Group/2002/02/ftf17/#schedule

All the white slots are currently available.

Misha


On 21/02/2002 13:19:42 Brian McBride wrote:
> In principal, I think that would be an excellent idea.
>
> Jeremy, please could you suggest a statement of purpose for the meeting
and
> objectives, and possibly an agenda.
>
> Do we do this a small subgroup from RDFCore meeting with the i18n folks or
> as the whole WG.  Who from RDFCore would like to participate in such a
> discussion on RDF conformance to charmod?
>
> Misha, can you suggest times when it might be possible to meet.
>
> Brian
>
> At 11:51 21/02/2002 +0000, Misha.Wolf@reuters.com wrote:
>
> >[I'm copying w3c-i18n-wg, rather than w3c-i18n-ig, as this
> >is a process mail, not a technical one]
> >
> >Are you folks interested in meeting with the I18N WG
> >at the Plenary to discuss outstanding issues?
> >
> >Misha Wolf
> >I18N WG Chair
> >
> >
> >On 20/02/2002 11:11:07 Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> > > > rdfms-xmllang: Why isn't xml:lang information represented within the
RDF
> > > data model?
> > >
> > > > This was put on hold whilst we looked at datatypes.
> > > > Model and Syntax says that lang is part of the literal; that no
triples
> > > are
> > > > generated for an xml:lang.  We can choose to stick with that or
> > change it.
> > > > Does anyone have a compelling reason to change it?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My proposal before we put it on hold was in the overly long:
> > >
> > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Sep/0378.html
> > >
> > > [[[
> > > [1]
> > > An RDF Literal is a Unicode string, optionally paired with a
> > > language tag (as defined in RFC3066).
> > > ]]]
> > >
> > > in that thread we identified equally rules as follows:
> > >
> > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0375.html
> > >
> > > suggesting that such pairs are equal
> > >   if and only if
> > >   the unicode strings are equal
> > > and
> > >    the lang tags are either both absent, or both present and equal (as
lang
> > > tags, i.e. case insensitive).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This then works orthogonally with:
> > > - the graph syntax
> > > - model theory
> > > - datatyping
> > > - any treatment of Unicode string normalization
> > >
> > >
> > > Jeremy
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------------- --
> >         Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com
> >
> >Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
> >sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
> >the views of Reuters Ltd.
>



------------------------------------------------------------- ---
        Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com

Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.
Received on Friday, 22 February 2002 11:16:55 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:19 EDT