- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:44:52 -0000
- To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>, <danbri@w3.org>, <brian_mcbride@hp.com>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <w3c-i18n-wg@w3.org>
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