RE: Outstanding Issues - rdfms-xmllang

Purpose
=======

Clarify conformance between the RDF working drafts and charmod (and any
other I18N issues).


I would build an agenda around an intro to the RDF graph for the I18N people
and then the three I18N issues that we have identified:
- xmllang
- normalization of string literals (NFC)
- IURI, IRI, URI in rdf

There is a further topic which is N-triples and what are its I18N needs.
DaveB, can you give a five minute intro to N-triples at our meeting - what
its purpose and scope are, rather more than what the syntax is.

Jeremy



> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Brian McBride
> Sent: 21 February 2002 13:20
> To: Misha.Wolf@reuters.com; danbri@w3.org; brian_mcbride@hp.com
> Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org; w3c-i18n-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Outstanding Issues - rdfms-xmllang
>
>
> In principal, I think that would be an excellent idea.
>
> Jeremy, please could you suggest a statement of purpose for the
> meeting and
> objectives, and possibly an agenda.
>
> Do we do this a small subgroup from RDFCore meeting with the i18n
> folks or
> as the whole WG.  Who from RDFCore would like to participate in such a
> discussion on RDF conformance to charmod?
>
> Misha, can you suggest times when it might be possible to meet.
>
> Brian
>
> At 11:51 21/02/2002 +0000, Misha.Wolf@reuters.com wrote:
>
> >[I'm copying w3c-i18n-wg, rather than w3c-i18n-ig, as this
> >is a process mail, not a technical one]
> >
> >Are you folks interested in meeting with the I18N WG
> >at the Plenary to discuss outstanding issues?
> >
> >Misha Wolf
> >I18N WG Chair
> >
> >
> >On 20/02/2002 11:11:07 Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> > > > rdfms-xmllang: Why isn't xml:lang information represented
> within the RDF
> > > data model?
> > >
> > > > This was put on hold whilst we looked at datatypes.
> > > > Model and Syntax says that lang is part of the literal;
> that no triples
> > > are
> > > > generated for an xml:lang.  We can choose to stick with that or
> > change it.
> > > > Does anyone have a compelling reason to change it?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My proposal before we put it on hold was in the overly long:
> > >
> > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Sep/0378.html
> > >
> > > [[[
> > > [1]
> > > An RDF Literal is a Unicode string, optionally paired with a
> > > language tag (as defined in RFC3066).
> > > ]]]
> > >
> > > in that thread we identified equally rules as follows:
> > >
> > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0375.html
> > >
> > > suggesting that such pairs are equal
> > >   if and only if
> > >   the unicode strings are equal
> > > and
> > >    the lang tags are either both absent, or both present and
> equal (as lang
> > > tags, i.e. case insensitive).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This then works orthogonally with:
> > > - the graph syntax
> > > - model theory
> > > - datatyping
> > > - any treatment of Unicode string normalization
> > >
> > >
> > > Jeremy
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------------- --
> >         Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com
> >
> >Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
> >sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
> >the views of Reuters Ltd.
>
>

Received on Friday, 22 February 2002 11:45:06 UTC