W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-comments@w3.org > May 2009

RE: [LC response] To C. M. Sperberg-McQueen

From: Phillips, Addison <addison@amazon.com>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 10:22:56 -0700
To: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "'C. M. Sperberg-McQueen'" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
CC: "public-owl-comments@w3.org" <public-owl-comments@w3.org>, "public-rdf-text@w3.org" <public-rdf-text@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01A00BA996@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com>
(on behalf of the Internationalization Core WG)

We discussed your response to these comments in our last teleconference [2].

> 
> Point (4): rtfn:length function
> 
> The definition says "the number of characters", and we cannot see
> how this could
> be misunderstood. Note that we never talk about various UNICODE
> encodings, such
> as UTF-8, and doing so at this place might come a bit out of the
> blue.

The I18N WG urges you to consider that, while your definition is the correct one to have here, you should refer to CharMod (requirement C010, see [1]) and ensure that implementers know that you mean 'code point' here so that there is no confusion.

> Point (5): Internationalization issues
> 
> We agree that these might be important issues; however, they
> clearly exceed the
> scope of rdf:text. The main goal of this specification was to
> provide adequate
> names for the sets of plain literals in RDF, and not to solve all
> internationalization problems one might have.

The I18N WG objects to this response. The goal of any Specification must always be to address the needs of international audiences; we feel that Mr. Sperberg-McQueen's points are not corner cases. We fail to see how a document entitled:

  rdf:text: A Datatype for Internationalized Text

... can then go on to make the claim that it only provides "adequate names for the sets of plain literals in RDF" and "not solve all internationalization problems one might have" therein! We agree that the scope can be limited to plain literals, but the results should address all of the international text needs of those literals. Mr. Sperberg-McQueen's note mentions Ruby, which we would agree could be classed as beyond the scope. However...

The problem of bidirectional markup seems to represent a barrier to international users. Rdf:text is intended to transmit "natural language" data and such text can be bidirectional in nature. The inability to include markup indicating direction/direction override might be addressed via the use of Unicode control characters, however, this is strongly frowned upon in markup languages. It is better to indicate directionality using markup instead. 

Since several of us have been working with you on rdf:text, we apologize for not noting the potential issue earlier. However we feel that at least bidi markup should be considered and should be addressed specifically in the text.

Regards (for Internationalization Core WG),

Addison


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#sec-PerceptionsOutro 
[2] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/29-core-minutes.html 


Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126
Chair -- W3C Internationalization WG

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point (5): Internationalization issues
> 
> We agree that these might be important issues; however, they
> clearly exceed the
> scope of rdf:text. The main goal of this specification was to
> provide adequate
> names for the sets of plain literals in RDF, and not to solve all
> internationalization problems one might have.
> 
> Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl-
> comments@w3.org>
> (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment
> please let us
> know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's
> response to your
> comment.
> 
> Regards,
> Boris Motik
> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
> 

Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2009 17:24:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 6 May 2009 17:24:16 GMT