RE: I made an editorial pass over Section 5 of the document

Hello,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Axel Polleres [mailto:axel.polleres@deri.org]
> Sent: 06 April 2009 15:08
> To: Boris Motik
> Cc: public-rdf-text@w3.org
> Subject: Re: I made an editorial pass over Section 5 of the document
> 
> Boris Motik wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I've just made a pass over Section 5 of the rdf:text document. All my
> changes
> > are largely cosmetic: I mainly rephrased certain bits of the document.
> >
> > I did, however, notice one problem: the definition of the
> >
> >     fn:matches-language-range
> >
> > function does not seem to be completely clear, for two different reasons.
> >
> > - It is not clear whether the "otherwise" clause covers the cases of
> incorrectly
> > typed arguments.
> 
> 
> {{EdNote|[[User:Bmotik2|Boris Motik]] 06 April 2009| The "otherwise"
> part of this definition is not completely clear. One might get an
> impression that the function returns false even if $arg is not an
> rdf:text data value. I believe this was not the original intention;
> however, I wasn't sure, so I didn't change anything. To avoid confusion,
> I suggest to fully spell out the conditions under which the function
> returns false, and to include the usual sentence that says what happens
> if the arguments are not of the appropriate type.}}
> 
> Indeed, the function should return a type error, I made the typing
> conditions explicit and removed the Editor's note, please check.
> 

This indeed clarifies things.

> > - It is not clear whether the function allows for basic or extended language
> tag
> > matching.
> 
> My personal feeling is that basic language tag matching is pretty
> pointless. So, I suggest we support extended matching.
> 

I'm fine either way; my comment was that we should just be explicit about what
we mean.

In the rdf:langRange facet, however, I strongly advocate going with the basic
matching. Note that, in OWL, we need to solve existential constraints over
facets, and it is not clear to me how to implement this with extended matching.

> BTW: Here, we still refeer to BCP-47. Is that ok ,or given the latest
> changes, it would be advisable to refer to the fixed spec RFC 4647 instead?
> 

I don't really know what the conventions regarding that are.

Regards,

	Boris

> Axel
> 
> > I've added two new EdNotes explaining that. Please let me know should you
> find
> > any problems any of my changes.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > 	Boris
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Dr. Axel Polleres
> Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland,
> Galway
> email: axel.polleres@deri.org  url: http://www.polleres.net/

Received on Monday, 6 April 2009 14:20:01 UTC