- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:02:17 +0900
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- CC: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org, public-i18n-core@w3.org, andy.seaborne@hp.com, Lee Feigenbaum <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>
Hello Eric, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > * fsasaki@w3.org <fsasaki@w3.org> [2007-04-19 22:25+0900] > >> Comment from the i18n review of: >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20070326/ >> >> Comment 2 >> At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0704-sparql/ >> Editorial/substantive: S >> Location in reviewed document: >> Sec. 2.3.1 >> Renaming Section on \"Matching Language Tags\" >> >> Comment: >> >> The section title \"Matching Language Tags\" implies matching against language ranges, see comment 3 at >> http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0704-sparql/ [http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0704-sparql/] >> . However, sec. 2.3.1 does not describe sub tag matching, but only identity of a language tag and given data. Rename proposal: \"Matching the Identity ofLanguage Tags\". >> > > We use "matches" pretty consistently through the document, though we have a normative ref to 4647 which somewhat coopts the term "matching", especially wrt language tags. Nevertheless, I feel that using a synonym for "matches" on just this section would cost consistency and comprehensibility. > agree. > I hacked up some modifications to §2.3 (attached) which make the section actually cover 4647.matches. These changes end up referencing SPARQL functions long before they are introduced (§3) so I don't think this is a good idea. > > I think a better solution is to rename 3.1-3.3 to > * 2.3.1 Matching Literals with Language Tags > * 2.3.2 Matching Literals with Numeric Types > * 2.3.3 Matching Literals with Arbitrary Datatypes > which indicates that we are matching RDF terms. > sounds good to me. If you don't here from other i18n core participants, please regard the issue as closed. Felix > Does this latter solution satisfy you? If so, please respond to this message, prefixing the Subject: with "[CLOSED]". (I forgot to ask you to do that for Comment 1.) >
Received on Monday, 23 April 2007 01:02:22 UTC