W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > January to March 2008

Re: OWL (or RDFS) and RDF and language tags

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:27:29 +0000
Message-Id: <C98BFC5D-9846-41E1-9C0B-CF252F3EE559@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>

On 5 Feb 2008, at 23:19, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> It's been suggested to me that this would be a good place to ask  
> the following question.

It should be.

> All suggestions or pointers are very much appreciated!
> Is there either a standard way or a conventional way (best  
> practice) for indicating that the range of a predicate is a  
> localizable literal (i.e. plain literal with a language tag)?

I don't think so, at the moment.

> Similarly, is there a way to indicate in RDF Schema or OWL that the  
> range of a property should be a plain literal w/ no language tag.  
> (I guess that a datatype property of with range xsd:string is  
> semantically equivalent to a plain literal with no language tag,  
> but that still doesn't address my first question).

That would be my solution to the second question (i.e., xsd:string).

It can also be a solution of sorts to the first, though it requires  
reifying (in the generic sense) the literals. E.g., instead of a name  
string you have a name object which has a stringValue and a langType  
property. Then you can have very fine grained controlled over what's  
permissible, but you do have to have a mapping in order to get langed  
literals back out of it.

> I read http://www.inter-locale.com/whitepaper/iswc2004.pdf but  
> couldn't really make heads or tails as to whether it helps with my  
> problem :) (I've since also been pointed to http://www.w3.org/2007/ 
> OWL/tracker/issues/71 which seems related to my question, but I  
> can't tell whether resolution of the issue would solve my problem  
> or not.)

If the resolution were to allow for lang tag based constraints, it  
would. I added a pointer to this thread in this issue.

Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2008 15:25:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:16 UTC