- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 08:05:19 +0000
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Cc: <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
I was wondering where this might be put. The primer? Brian At 13:33 01/03/2002 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > > > 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 Thursday, 14 March 2002 03:07:11 UTC