- From: Tex Texin <tex@i18nguy.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:47:57 -0400
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- CC: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
This decision is acceptable and I thank you and the RDF group for your attention to it. Best regards, tex Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > Dear Tex > > You made a comment on RDF Concepts concerning the case of language tags: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0460 > > Our ref: > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#tex-01 > > In discussion, > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003AprJun/0020.html > > you agreed > [[ > The proposed text is a better solution as it makes the specification explicit, > but I would find the test cases as adequate to clarify the issue. > ]] > where the proposed text was a clairfying note and the test cases showed that > language tag case was not significant. > > On 9th May, 2003, > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0138 > (and also in an unminuted decision on the 4th April > http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2003-04-04) > the RDF Core WG accepted the comment and agreed the note we discussed earlier, > and agreed in principle to a simplified test case, now in: > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/tex-01 > The manifest says that the two test files have the same meaning. > They differ only in language tag case. > (Note: we have not finished all the formalities in approving these tests - I > will get back to you if there are any unexpected hiccups) > > The note can be found in the editors' draft and reads: > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/#section-Graph-Literal > [[ > Note: The case normalization of language tags is part of the description of > the abstract syntax, and consequently the abstract behaviour of RDF > applications. It does not 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. > ]] > > (You will see that for consistency with RFC 3066 and RDF Semantics we have > switched from the term language identifier to language tag) > > Another relevant note is > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/#implementation-note > [[ > Implementation Note: This abstract syntax is the syntax over which the formal > semantics are defined. Implementations are free to represent RDF graphs in > any other equivalent form. As an example: in an RDF graph, literals with > datatype rdf:XMLLiteral can be represented in a non-canonical format, and > canonicalization performed during the comparison between two such literals. > In this example the comparisons may be being performed either between > syntactic structures or between their denotations in the domain of discourse. > Implementations that do not require any such comparisons can hence be > optimized. > ]] > > Please reply to this email, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org indicating > whether this decision is acceptable. > > Thanks > > Jeremy -- ------------------------------------------------------------- Tex Texin cell: +1 781 789 1898 mailto:Tex@XenCraft.com Xen Master http://www.i18nGuy.com XenCraft http://www.XenCraft.com Making e-Business Work Around the World -------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 11 July 2003 15:49:38 UTC