- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 12:48:32 +0300
- To: <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Regrets for today's telecon. Comments below... >> 9: Issue xmlsch-07 datatype definition > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#xmlsch-07 > > Formal proposal to not accept this comment as it has been withdrawn by > the xml schema group: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0316.html > Vote: yes to not accept comment. > 10: Issue tex-01 > According to the IRC log: > > http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2003-04-04#T16-21-39 > > we resolved tex-01 on the 4th April but this was not recorded > in the IRC log. > > Therefore propose, as was previously agreed and not recorded: > > - classify tex-01 as a clarification > - add the following note to concepts: > [[ > Note: The case normalization of language tags is part of > the description of the abstract syntax, and implicitly the abstract > behaviour of RDF applications. It is not intended to constrain an > RDF implementation to actually normalize the case. > Crucially, the result > of comparing two language tags should not be sensitive to the case of > the original input. > ]] > - add the following test cases > [[ > <rdf:Description> > <eg:prop xml:lang="en-us">a</eg:prop> > </rdf:Description> > > entails > > <rdf:Description> > <eg:prop xml:lang="EN-us">a</eg:prop> > </rdf:Description> > > entails > > <rdf:Description> > <eg:prop xml:lang="en-US">a</eg:prop> > </rdf:Description> > ]] > > JJC please update/correct as necessary. Vote: yes. > 12: Language tags in typed literals > At last weeks telecon a straw poll indicated we were of a > mind that having > lang tags in the abstract syntax of typed literals was a mistake. > > After some discussion on the list Jeremy has offered two > options for removing them: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0071.html > > A co-chair would like us to be clear about the > advantages/effects of these > changes. Vote: yes for either Option 1 or Option 4. Prefer Option 4 over 1. The great advantage, as Graham pointed out, is simplifying datatyping, where the role of lang tags has cause alot of confusion and a good bit of strangeness in the specification. Option 4 simplifies matters the most, I think, and also has the added benefit that XML literals can be used for modular content management without concern of infection from the particulars of a given RDF/XML serialization (i.e. xml:lang attributes). > 13: Issue xmlsch-01 Typed Literal Structure > > Various proposals to close: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0247.html > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0252.html Vote: reject, and agree that reasonable explanation be provided > 14: Issue xmlsch-02 Whitespace facets > > Proposal: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0224.html Vote: yes to proposal option A Cheers, Patrick
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 05:48:46 UTC