- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 01:32:19 +0900
- 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 UTC