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

Re: Notes from RDFCore/I18N meeting

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:39:37 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020312143315.0322f118@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: Misha.Wolf@reuters.com
Cc: w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Hi Misha,

At 13:16 12/03/2002 +0000, Misha.Wolf@reuters.com wrote:
[...]
> > Notes from I18N/RDFCore Meeting
> >
> > -  I18N recommend that literals (strings) in the RDF graph be fully
> >    normalised UNICODE and should start with a combining character.
>
>   -  I18N recommend that literals (strings) in the RDF graph adhere to
>      the requirements of the Character Model for the World Wide Web
>      [CharMod], in particular chapter 4.  One consequence is that they
>      should *not* start with a composing character [CompChar].

Yes. That was a typo and is now fixed.  Regarding your other points,
thanks for the clarifications.  Our discussions in general and these
followup points have been very helpful.

Brian



> > -  I18N suggests that comparison of URI's behaves as if they are UNICODE
> >    normalised, but not does require that such normalization is performed.
>
>   -  I18N recommend that the RDF graph use Internationalized Resource
>      Identifiers [IRI] to identify nodes.
>
> > -  I18N agree that RDFCore requires a transitive string comparison
> >    algorithm and requests that the specs do not mislead application
> >    developers into thinking they are not permitted to implement a more
> >    flexible string matching algorithm, e.g. on queries.
>
>   -  I18N agree that RDFCore requires a transitive string comparison
>      algorithm and requests that the specs do not mislead application
>      developers into thinking they are not permitted to implement a more
>      flexible string matching algorithm, e.g. on queries.  In particular,
>      I18N requests that a note be included in the spec, drawing
>      developers attention to the language tag matching rules (see
>      [RFC 2616] and [RFC 3066]).
>
> > -  I18N note that the strings defining languages occasionally change and
> >    suggests that RDFCore may choose to use URI's to name languages. RDFCore
> >    agree to consider.
> >
> > -  I18N found the proposed solution of literals being a pair of a string
> >    and a language tag acceptable.
>
>   -  I18N found the proposed solution of literals being a pair of a string
>      and a language tag acceptable.  The spec will, of course, have to deal
>      with the fact of mixed-language strings.  Languages other than the
>      initial language of a string will probably be represented using an XML
>      fragment containing one or more instances of "xml:lang" and marked in
>      the graph as parseType="literal".
>
> > -  I18N agree that n-triples is an internal tool for the WG and developers
> >    and is not subject to the same internationization concerns of more
> >    public syntaxes. I18N request that the specs make this limited role for
> >    n-triples clear.
>
>   -  I18N agree that *if* n-triples is an internal tool for the WG and
>      developers and *if* it is not to be used for data interchange, then
>      it is not subject to the same internationization concerns of more
>      public syntaxes.  I18N request that the specs make this limited role
>      for n-triples *very* clear.
>
> > -  There was some dicussion of RDFCore concerns of lack of implementation
> >    of charmod and other specs delaying completion of RDFCore.
>
>[CharMod]  http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/
>[CompChar] http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#sec-fully-normalized
>[IRI]      http://www.w3.org/International/2001/draft-masinter-url-i18n-08.txt
>[RFC 2616] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt
>[RFC 3066] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3066.txt
>
>Thanks,
>Misha
>
>
>
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>         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 Tuesday, 12 March 2002 09:41:33 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:46:16 EDT