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

Re: Outstanding Issues - rdfms-xmllang

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 01:32:19 +0900
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20020228012521.0390be50@localhost>
To: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>, Misha.Wolf@reuters.com
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 12:13 02/02/25 -0500, John Cowan wrote:

>Literals are equal iff:
>
>1) the strings are equal, and
>2a) at least one string does not have a tag, or
>2b) one tag is a prefix of the other within the meaning of RFC 3066
>     (i.e. "fr"/French is not a prefix of "fry"/Frisian but is a prefix
>     of "FR-CA"/Canadian French).
>
>This treats a missing tag as synonymous with the RFC 3066 language range
>"*", which matches any tag.

I think that from an user perspective, that's the right thing to do.

However, the RDF core group, as they explained to us, needs a
definition that had the properties of equivalence classes,
with transitivity for the equality relation, for use for
deciding whether two labels were the same node in a graph,
or a different node.

For this, the only reasonable solution was that both text and
language have to match. User-oriented matching can [and should]
occur on a higher level [and I think that we got a commitment
from RDF core to say so in the spec].

Regards,    Martin.
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2002 11:45:26 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:20 EDT