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

Re: encoding specification in the syntax document?

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:02:02 +0100
Message-Id: <4528EA35-910C-48EA-96D9-34DDA14C19F4@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
To: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>

Sounds pretty editorial to me -- I suggest you make the relevant  
addition.

Ian


On 27 Aug 2008, at 08:22, Ivan Herman wrote:

>
>
> 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 16:02:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 August 2008 16:02:46 GMT