W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: lang tag stuff ISSUE-71

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:59:03 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20080423.135903.66740208.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: lang tag stuff ISSUE-71
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:43:13 +0100

> I have reviewed the Carroll/Phillips paper Multilingual RDF and OWL.
> 
> The mechanism proposed there would probably not sit well with this group.

[...]

Yup.  :-)

> ====
> 
> A smaller step around which I believe it would be easier to find
> consensus would be to create a new datatype constructor 
> 
> LiteralsWithLang(langtag)
> 
> e.g.
> 
> LiteralWithLang("en-US")
> 
> that given a langtag is the (conceptually infinite) set of plain
> literals with that language tag (case insensitive comparison). 
> 
> A triples syntax for that may be:
> 
> _:a rdf:type owl:PlainLiterals .
> _:a owl:withLanguageTag "en-US"^^xsd:language .
> 
> 
> I believe that in OWL Full this would be equivalent to the
> non-XMLLiteral part of the Carroll/Philipps paper, and that this is
> more likely to be acceptable to the OWL DL community. 
> 
> This does not address XML and XHTML integration which was one of the goals in the paper.
> 
> It also leaves the non-trivial task of converting the ontology in RFC
> 4646/4647 and the various ISO standards into OWL as an exercise for
> the reader. 
> 
> I am hoping for some feedback before making a proposal to close.

Yes, this sort of thing is more palatable.  I suggest having a lang
"facet" and then using the syntax for datatype restrictions.

> Jeremy

peter
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2008 18:02:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 23 April 2008 18:02:46 GMT