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

Re: rdfms-xmllang - text for a note

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 08:05:19 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020314080425.031fc008@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Cc: <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
I was wondering where this might be put.  The primer?

Brian


At 13:33 01/03/2002 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> >
> > This treats a missing tag as synonymous with the RFC 3066 language range
> > "*", which matches any tag.
> >
>
>At the plenary, in discussion with Misha and Martin, it became clear that
>there are two equalities needed.
>
>The RDF specs need a mathematically rigorous and transitive equality. User
>applications probably want an equality following John's proposal.
>
>The RDF specs need to clarify that application developers are not misled
>that the transitive equality is normative for all uses.
>
>The RDF Core has agreed that the definition of equality is as I earlier
>indicated, with exact (case insensitive) matching of lang-tags.
>
>Misha suggested that we should use a note to clarify this.
>
>Thus I propose that text such as the following is included near the
>definition of literal equality:
>
>[[[
>
>NOTE: This definition of equality is appropriate when constructing an RDF
>graph, when checking an RDF test case, and when interpreting an RDF graph
>according to the RDF model theory. In other contexts it is usually more
>appropriate to use the methods described in RFC 3066 treating a missing
>language tag as "*".
>
>]]]
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2002 03:07:11 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:46:18 EDT