- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 11:30:12 -0500
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On May 30, 2011, at 3:51 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> On 26 May 2011, at 16:43, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
>>> RDF Concepts currently says that the language tag must be valid
>>> according to RFC 5646, and lowercase. So I'd say that anything of the
>>> form rdf:lang{langTag} where {langTag} is not lowercase or not
>>> syntactically valid according to RFC 5646 is an ill-typed literal.
>
> Actually I was wrong here -- RDF Concepts refers to RFC 3066, which has a much simpler generic syntax for language tags. RFC 5646 obsoletes RFC 3066. Oh well.
>
> So I guess there's a related but separate issue here -- should language-tagged literals in RDF 1.1 still be defined in terms of the (simple) RFC 3066, or in terms of the (much more hairy) RFC 5646? I'll raise an issue for that.
>
>> people in the WG said they would like to see a relationship between, e.g., "foo"@en and "foo"@en-GB (see the answers to your quiz).
>
> I think it is possible to achieve consensus that trying to establish equalities between @en and @en-GB in core RDF is a bad idea. It's just too damn hard.
Its worse than merely hard, it would break RDFS and OWL class reasoning. Not only should we not go there, we should erect large barriers of RDF police tape to warn people from trying to go near it.
Pat
>
> +1 to everything else you said.
>
> Richard
>
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Monday, 30 May 2011 16:30:44 UTC