Dave wrote:
>
> We've been using the term lang-strings to discuss these.
> giving the pairs:
> ("chat")
> ("chat", "en")
> ("chat", "fr")
>
> We discussed with I18N WG our requirement for
> a mathematically rigorous and transitive equality.
> and agreed to define it as:
> 1) exact matching of strings
> and
> 2) exact (case insensitive) matching of lang-tags [when both present]
>
> HOWEVER
>
> 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 "*".
>
> -- Some proposed words by Jeremy Carroll
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Mar/0005.html
>
>
> We are still working on this; consider the above a preview :)
Are you saying RDF Parser will be supposed to create literally and uniformly (" decorations for content in
the future?? Something like (of course enclosed by the ususal namespace declarations and rdf - begin/end tags)
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://foo.org/"><dc:title>genius</dc:title></rdf:Description>
will give the graph
http://foo.org/ --http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/--> ("genius")
and NOT
http://foo.org/ --http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/--> genius
I'm not sure, whether i should like this.
rs
>
> Cheers
>
> Dave
>
|