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

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

From: Tex Texin <tex@i18nguy.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:47:57 -0400
Message-ID: <3F0F146D.34D242EA@I18nGuy.com>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
CC: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org

This decision is acceptable and I thank you and the RDF group for your
attention to it.

Best regards,

tex

Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
> 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

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tex Texin   cell: +1 781 789 1898   mailto:Tex@XenCraft.com
Xen Master                          http://www.i18nGuy.com
                         
XenCraft		            http://www.XenCraft.com
Making e-Business Work Around the World
-------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 11 July 2003 15:49:38 GMT

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