W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > April to June 2003

tex-01 case of language tag [was RDF Concepts document Jan 23, lang comments]

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:22:39 +0300
To: tex@i18nguy.com
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
Message-Id: <200306302222.39987.jjc@hpl.hp.com>



Dear Tex

You made a comment on RDF Concepts concerning the case of language tags:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0460

Our ref:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#tex-01

In discussion,

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003AprJun/0020.html

you agreed
[[
The proposed text is a better solution as it makes the specification explicit,
but I would find the test cases as adequate to clarify the issue.
]] 
where the proposed text was a clairfying note and the test cases showed that 
language tag case was not significant.

On 9th May, 2003,
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0138
(and also in an unminuted decision on the 4th April 
http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2003-04-04)
the RDF Core WG accepted the comment and agreed the note we discussed earlier, 
and agreed in principle to a simplified test case, now in:
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/tex-01
The manifest says that the two test files have the same meaning.
They differ only in language tag case.
(Note: we have not finished all the formalities in approving these tests - I 
will get back to you if there are any unexpected hiccups)

The note can be found in the editors' draft and reads:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/#section-Graph-Literal
[[
Note: The case normalization of language tags is part of the description of 
the abstract syntax, and consequently the abstract behaviour of RDF 
applications. It does not constrain an RDF implementation to actually 
normalize the case. Crucially, the result of comparing two language tags 
should not be sensitive to the case of the original input.
]]

(You will see that for consistency with RFC 3066 and RDF Semantics we have 
switched from the term language identifier to language tag)

Another relevant note is 
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/#implementation-note
[[
Implementation Note: This abstract syntax is the syntax over which the formal 
semantics are defined. Implementations are free to represent RDF graphs in 
any other equivalent form. As an example: in an RDF graph, literals with 
datatype rdf:XMLLiteral can be represented in a non-canonical format, and 
canonicalization performed during the comparison between two such literals. 
In this example the comparisons may be being performed either between 
syntactic structures or between their denotations in the domain of discourse. 
Implementations that do not require any such comparisons can hence be 
optimized. 
]]

Please reply to this email, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org indicating
whether this decision is acceptable.

Thanks

Jeremy
Received on Monday, 30 June 2003 16:22:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:32 GMT