Re: rdfms-xmllang - text for a note

Brian--

This note doesn't strike me as the kind of thing that ought to go *only* 
in the Primer, although it might well go there in addition to someplace 
else.  It sounds like an important qualification for RDF developers, and 
I don't think it should be *necessary* for people to read the Primer to 
get this type of information.

--Frank

Brian McBride wrote:

> 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 "*".
>>
>> ]]]
> 
> 


-- 
Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875

Received on Thursday, 14 March 2002 08:21:12 UTC