- From: <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 13:16:54 +0000
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On 06/03/2002 22:00:41 Brian McBride wrote:
> Misha,
>
> The notes from the meeting are in our f2f minutes at:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020225-f2f/#i18n
>
> Please let me know whether you approve or whether there any errors or
> omissions.
Hello Brian,
Apologies for the delayed response. See my suggested replacements below.
> Notes from I18N/RDFCore Meeting
>
> - I18N recommend that literals (strings) in the RDF graph be fully
> normalised UNICODE and should start with a combining character.
- I18N recommend that literals (strings) in the RDF graph adhere to
the requirements of the Character Model for the World Wide Web
[CharMod], in particular chapter 4. One consequence is that they
should *not* start with a composing character [CompChar].
> - I18N suggests that comparison of URI's behaves as if they are UNICODE
> normalised, but not does require that such normalization is performed.
- I18N recommend that the RDF graph use Internationalized Resource
Identifiers [IRI] to identify nodes.
> - I18N agree that RDFCore requires a transitive string comparison
> algorithm and requests that the specs do not mislead application
> developers into thinking they are not permitted to implement a more
> flexible string matching algorithm, e.g. on queries.
- I18N agree that RDFCore requires a transitive string comparison
algorithm and requests that the specs do not mislead application
developers into thinking they are not permitted to implement a more
flexible string matching algorithm, e.g. on queries. In particular,
I18N requests that a note be included in the spec, drawing
developers attention to the language tag matching rules (see
[RFC 2616] and [RFC 3066]).
> - I18N note that the strings defining languages occasionally change and
> suggests that RDFCore may choose to use URI's to name languages. RDFCore
> agree to consider.
>
> - I18N found the proposed solution of literals being a pair of a string
> and a language tag acceptable.
- I18N found the proposed solution of literals being a pair of a string
and a language tag acceptable. The spec will, of course, have to deal
with the fact of mixed-language strings. Languages other than the
initial language of a string will probably be represented using an XML
fragment containing one or more instances of "xml:lang" and marked in
the graph as parseType="literal".
> - I18N agree that n-triples is an internal tool for the WG and developers
> and is not subject to the same internationization concerns of more
> public syntaxes. I18N request that the specs make this limited role for
> n-triples clear.
- I18N agree that *if* n-triples is an internal tool for the WG and
developers and *if* it is not to be used for data interchange, then
it is not subject to the same internationization concerns of more
public syntaxes. I18N request that the specs make this limited role
for n-triples *very* clear.
> - There was some dicussion of RDFCore concerns of lack of implementation
> of charmod and other specs delaying completion of RDFCore.
[CharMod] http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/
[CompChar] http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#sec-fully-normalized
[IRI] http://www.w3.org/International/2001/draft-masinter-url-i18n-08.txt
[RFC 2616] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt
[RFC 3066] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3066.txt
Thanks,
Misha
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Tuesday, 12 March 2002 08:19:35 UTC