- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:33:10 -0000
- To: "John Cowan" <jcowan@reutershealth.com>, <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>
- Cc: <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> > This treats a missing tag as synonymous with the RFC 3066 language range > "*", which matches any tag. > At the plenary, in discussion with Misha and Martin, it became clear that there are two equalities needed. The RDF specs need a mathematically rigorous and transitive equality. User applications probably want an equality following John's proposal. The RDF specs need to clarify that application developers are not misled that the transitive equality is normative for all uses. The RDF Core has agreed that the definition of equality is as I earlier indicated, with exact (case insensitive) matching of lang-tags. Misha suggested that we should use a note to clarify this. Thus I propose that text such as the following is included near the definition of literal equality: [[[ NOTE: This definition of equality is appropriate when constructing an RDF graph, when checking an RDF test case, and when interpreting an RDF graph according to the RDF model theory. In other contexts it is usually more appropriate to use the methods described in RFC 3066 treating a missing language tag as "*". ]]]
Received on Friday, 1 March 2002 08:33:31 UTC