W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2004

Re: [Fwd: Your comments on the Character Model [C028, C029, C030, C031]]

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:10:30 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040216170931.02e94250@127.0.0.1>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

In my case, silence is consent on this issue.  (I took a quick look and it 
seemed OK, though I didn't cross-check the issues in great detail.)

#g
--

At 10:43 16/02/04 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote:


>Hi all,
>
>as expected the I18N formally asking for our opinion on their treatment of 
>our comments.
>
>I am not sure when we next might have a telecon, but this is a potential 
>agenda item.
>
>I suggested in
>
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2004Jan/0076
>
>a response accepting their decisions. (Since this is the default I guess 
>we only *need* to discuss this, in the next two weeks, if someone 
>disagrees with that)
>
>
>Jeremy
>
>
>
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>
>From: "Richard Ishida" <ishida@w3.org>
>To: <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
>Cc: <www-i18n-comments@w3.org>
>Subject: Your comments on the Character Model [C028, C029, C030, C031]
>Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 20:25:10 -0000
>Dear Jeremy,
>
>Many thanks for your comments on the 2nd Last Call version of the Character
>Model for the World Wide Web v1.0 [1].  We appreciate the interest you have
>taken in this specification.
>
>You can see the comments you submitted on behalf of the RDF Core Group,
>grouped together, at
>http://www.w3.org/International/Group/2002/charmod-lc/SortByGroup.html#C028
>(You can jump to a specific comment in the table by adding its ID to the end
>of the URI.)
>
>PLEASE REVIEW the decisions for the following additional comments and reply
>to us within the next two weeks at mailto:www-i18n-comments@w3.org (copying
>w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org) to say whether you are satisfied with the decision
>taken.
>         C028, C029, C030, C031
>
>Information relating to these comments is included below.
>
>The Character Model has recently been split into two parts. These comments
>relate to the editor's version at
>http://www.w3.org/International/Group/charmod-edit/charmod1.html
>
>Best regards,
>Richard Ishida, for the I18N WG
>
>
>
>
>DECISIONS REQUIRING A RESPONSE
>==============================
>
>C028 Na Na C Jeremy Carroll
>         RDF Core WG
>         P       MD      Various Endorsement from RDF Core
>
>     *
>
>       Comment (received 2002-05-27) -- Endorsement from RDF Core
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2002May/0017.html
>
>       For the sections 3.4, 4, 6, 9, C, D RDF Core endorses the last call
>working draft. We have found earlier drafts helpful in identifying how best
>to meet our responsibilities to RDF users world wide. (However, we do not
>intend to address all the requirements of these sections in the version of
>the RDF recommendations currently in working draft).
>     *
>
>       Decision: Not applicable.
>     *
>
>       Rationale: We thank you for your endorsement. We have classified this
>comment as 'not applicable' because it does not suggest or imply any
>changes. We would like to note that the Character Model is written so as to
>make clear that specifications do not have to follow all the requirements,
>just those that apply in their specific case.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>C029 Na Na C Jeremy Carroll
>         RDF Core WG
>         P       MD      2       breadth of scope
>
>     *
>
>       Comment (received 2002-05-27) -- breadth of scope
>
>       Concerning sections 1 and 2 RDF Core is concerned that the scope of
>charmod is overly broad. In particular, there appears to be no
>acknowledgement that some languages being defined by W3C working groups may
>not be intended as web languages and hence not have a need to address
>internationalization issues. There may be an implicit (and false) assumption
>that all W3C recommendations specify (only) web languages with processing
>models.
>     *
>
>       Our response (sent 2002-05-27) -- Re: breadth of scope
>     *
>
>       Comment (received 2002-05-28) -- RE: breadth of scope
>     *
>
>       Decision: Not applicable.
>     *
>
>       Rationale: We have classified this comment as 'not applicable',
>because it is too general. Each CharMod requirement applies only where
>applicable. For example, if a specification doesn't deal with sorting, then
>requirements related to sorting do not apply. Also, specifications that
>don't deal with text (e.g. a bitmap format) would therefore not have any
>applicable requrements (except e.g. for textual comments and other
>metainformation embedded in the format). We would also like to point out
>that the term 'processing model' is taken very widely here. Even if a
>specification does not have an explicitly defined processing model, it
>implicitly defines how to process (e.g. match) characters. As an example,
>RDF conforms to the processing model, on the level of the abstract syntax by
>virtue of the fact that the abstract syntax is expressed in Unicode, and on
>the level of RDF/XML by virtue of being based on XML.
>
>
>
>
>C030 E N C Jeremy Carroll
>         RDF Core WG
>         P       MD      3.5     non-universality of processing model
>
>     *
>
>       Comment (received 2002-05-27) -- non-universality of processing model
>
>       For the section 3.5 RDF Core WG notes that the language is somewhat
>offputting for us as specification developers given that our specification
>explicitly does not have a processing model. We have no particular
>suggestions about this, nor would we object if the I18N WG chose not to
>address this issue.
>     *
>
>       Our response (sent 2002-05-27) -- Re: non-universality of processing
>model
>     *
>
>       Comment (received 2002-05-28) -- RE: non-universality of processing
>model
>     *
>
>       Decision: Noted.
>
>       Rationale: We have classified this comment as 'Noted', because it did
>not contain any suggestions for changes.
>
>       However, in order to address the misunderstanding that we think this
>comment exposes, we have added some text (just before C014):
>
>       "Also, while this document uses the term Reference
><emph>Processing</emph> Model and describes its properties in terms of
>processing, the model also applies to specifications that do not explicitly
>define a processing model."
>
>       We hope that this clarifies the situation for RDF: Even if there is no
>processing model for RDF, on the level of text processing, RDF conforms to
>the Charmod Reference Processing Model because of the way the abstract
>syntax is defined in terms of Unicode characters and because of the way XML
>is used.
>
>
>
>
>C031 S P C Jeremy Carroll
>         RDF Core WG
>         P       MD      8       no dependency on IRI draft
>
>     *
>
>       See also the following comments: C059 C170
>     *
>
>       Comment (received 2002-05-27) -- no dependency on IRI draft
>
>       The main concern of the RDF Core WG is section 8. Any normative
>section of charmod MUST NOT depend on the IETF IRI draft which is not
>finished and is not yet stable. We draw attention to 'SHOULD use
>Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRI) [I-D IRI]'. The IRI draft is
>only a draft, the reference to it is not normative, and the strength of this
>SHOULD dependency appears excessive ('not optional'). In particular, the IRI
>draft does not adequately address IRI equality (not merely functional
>equivalence in retrieval). Moreover, the bidi section presents a learning
>curve which developers are unlikely to want to climb before IRI has
>consensus around it; We have found the text in Xlink section 5.4 and XML
>Erratum 26 adequately clear for some of the IRI questions, particularly
>those that are most pressing for RDF and believe that charmod should merely:
>
>       - reiterate such text;
>
>       - reiterate the early uniform normalization model for the iris when
>regarded as unicode strings
>     *
>
>       Decision: Partially accepted.
>
>       Rationale: Our plan is that the IRI ID, referenced in this section,
>will have been submitted for Proposed Standard by the time CharMod moves to
>the next stage. IRI equality is fully addressed in the latest IRI ID
>version.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>USEFUL LINKS
>==============
>[1] The version of CharMod you commented on:
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430/
>[2] Latest editor's version (still being edited):
>http://www.w3.org/International/Group/charmod-edit/charmod1.html
>http://www.w3.org/International/Group/charmod-edit/charmod2.html
>[3] Last Call comments table, sorted by ID:
>http://www.w3.org/International/Group/2002/charmod-lc/
>

------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Monday, 16 February 2004 12:50:53 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Monday, 16 February 2004 12:50:56 EST