Re: text, lowercase language tags

Boris Motik wrote:
> 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.

I think Andy may be subscribed to this list but is away at the moment.

Before he left we did briefly talk about the flurry of changes to the 
document but it seemed too fluid to track in real time. We were aiming 
to let it settle first then look at the total set of changes.

Regarding the language tags I personally see no problem with option 1, 
that seems in keeping with both BCP-47 and RDF.

Dave

>> -----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 20:10:42 UTC