- From: Mark Davis <mark@macchiato.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:33:12 -0800
- To: "John Cowan" <jcowan@reutershealth.com>, <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>
- Cc: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
That sounds reasonable to me. Mark ————— Γνῶθι σαυτόν — Θαλῆς [For transliteration, see http://oss.software.ibm.com/cgi-bin/icu/tr] http://www.macchiato.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Cowan" <jcowan@reutershealth.com> To: <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com> Cc: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>; <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>; <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>; <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 09:13 Subject: Re: Outstanding Issues - rdfms-xmllang > Misha.Wolf@reuters.com wrote: > > > > - I don't think the proposal: > [snipped] > > is right, as a string without a language tag would not match one > > with. A consequence would be that people would be discouraged from > > language tagging their strings, in case other people haven't tagged > > *their* strings. > > > I agree. > > > > - The above seems to suggest that degrees of fuzziness are required, at > > user option, as with regular search engines. > > > I don't think that's necessary. How about the following rules: > > Literals are equal iff: > > 1) the strings are equal, and > 2a) at least one string does not have a tag, or > 2b) one tag is a prefix of the other within the meaning of RFC 3066 > (i.e. "fr"/French is not a prefix of "fry"/Frisian but is a prefix > of "FR-CA"/Canadian French). > > This treats a missing tag as synonymous with the RFC 3066 language range > "*", which matches any tag. > > -- > John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> http://www.reutershealth.com > I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan > han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_ > >
Received on Monday, 25 February 2002 12:31:12 UTC