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

Re: encoding specification in the syntax document?

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:22:27 +0200
Message-ID: <48B500B3.9080205@w3.org>
To: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
CC: 'W3C OWL Working Group' <public-owl-wg@w3.org>


Boris Motik wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> The strings in the structural specification are in UCS (see Section 2), and the IRIs are just like in the respective specs. Hence,
> it seems to me that the structural specification is unambiguous regarding this point.
> 

Ah. Right, I missed that.

> Now it is true that we don't specify how to encode documents containing an ontology written in functional-style syntax. We could add
> a sentence that people SHOULD use UTF-8 for that purpose. If everyone agrees, we can call this an editorial change and I can just do
> it.

I am personally o.k. with that, but that is only me...

Thanks

Ivan

P.S. Small editorial point:

http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#sec-RefUnicode

gives some advices on the way W3C docs should refer to UCS and Unicode.
You may want that into account.


> 
> Regards,
> 
> 	Boris
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org]
>> Sent: 26 August 2008 16:32
>> To: Boris Motik
>> Cc: W3C OWL Working Group
>> Subject: encoding specification in the syntax document?
>>
>> Boris,
>>
>> while looking at the UCS vs Unicode question (to be discussed
>> separately) a question came up: what is exactly the situation with the
>> functional syntax? It does not say whether the ontology is defined using
>> UCS or Unicode (let us put aside for a moment which one) and which
>> encoding is used. Shouldn't it be said somewhere?
>>
>> Of course the fact that it uses Unicode is, sort of, indirectly there:
>> it uses IRI and the literals' lexical spaces are, I presume, all in
>> UCS/Unicode (does it say in the XML Schema doc? Probably). But it is
>> better to make it explicit.
>>
>> But the encoding issue still remains. We could say that it is encoded in
>> UTF-8 (this is what Turtle does, for example), or we could specify that
>> UTF-8 is the default and introduce another thingy in the grammar to
>> possibly override that. I personally do not see an issue in sticking to
>> UTF-8 (although it is not an efficient encoding for Asian languages...).
>> But we should say it somewhere...
>>
>> Did I miss something?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf


Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2008 07:23:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 August 2008 07:23:01 GMT