- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:26:03 +0100
- To: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- CC: public-rdf-text@w3.org
Boris Motik wrote: >>> - 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. The easiest solution seems to add an additional fn:matches-language-range-basic That does only basic lang-range-matching, but wait, wouldn't that be superfluous anyways... isnt't basic lang matching just $range = "*" =boils down to=> fn:lang-from-text($arg is not empty and otherwise just $range = "XYZ" =boils down to=> fn:lang-from-text($arg) == "XYZ" ? > 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/ > -- 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 14:26:45 UTC