- From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 19:57:34 +0100
- To: "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: <public-rdf-text@w3.org>
I'm sorry about the typo: I personally see *no* problem with mixed-case lexical forms. Pinging Andy seems a good idea: if he doesn't mind, I'll be happy to change the definitions. Hence, please go ahead and do that. Regards, Boris > -----Original Message----- > From: public-rdf-text-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-text-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of Sandro Hawke > Sent: 06 April 2009 19:46 > To: Boris Motik > Cc: public-rdf-text@w3.org > Subject: Re: text, lowercase language tags > > > > As far as I know, there we no extensive discussions on this point, so > > thanks for starting one. > > > > I would actually prefer option 1. Normalizing the value space to > > lowercase makes sense from the OWL point of view (we clearly don't > > want "abc"@en and "abc"@EN to be distinct objects that might cause a > > violation of some cardinality constraint). > > Sounds good. > > > I also see now problem to > > having mixed-case lexical forms. > > I'm not sure what you mean here, sorry. > > > In fact, the older version of the document followed this approach. I > > changed this recently, however, in desire to be compatible with > > RDF. After all, we got some potentially show-stopping comments by RDF > > people, so I thought to preempt these this time around. > > > > How shall we go about resolving this? Would it be possible to check > > with the RDF people whether they'd be OK with option 1? > > I don't have any idea who might specifically care about this. Andy > Seaborn seemed to be the RDF main commenter, but I don't see any mention > of this issue. I lean towards just getting what reviews we get on the > next public draft, but I wouldn't mind pinging Andy before hand (or > anyone else who seems like they might have particular interest). > > -- Sandro
Received on Monday, 6 April 2009 18:58:48 UTC