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

Re: I18N issues an OWL2

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 22:46:35 +0100
Message-ID: <487531BB.9060907@deri.org>
To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
CC: Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>, "Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com>, Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, Alan Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>, "public-owl-wg@w3.org" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core-comments@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, "public-rif-comments@w3.org" <public-rif-comments@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>

Felix Sasaki wrote:
> 
> Jie Bao さんは書きました:
>> Hi, Ian, Alan and Axel
>>
>> Per Addison's suggestion, would you prefer to have a joint task force
>> from the three WGs: OWL, RIF and I18N?  If that works, Axel (RIF),
>> Addison (I18N) and me (OWL) could be the pointer person for next
>> steps. Any other idea or comment?
>>   
> 
> it would be great to have a joint call, maybe even before the to be 
> expected "August summer break". That might be sufficient to go through 
> Addison's comments, to judge whether we should install a task force, how 
> long it should work etc. How about next week?
> 
> Felix

sounds good to me.

Axel

>> Best
>>
>> Jie
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Phillips, Addison <addison@amazon.com> 
>> wrote:
>>  
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Would you consider including I18N WG in your joint task force? These 
>>> issues seem to arise fairly frequently. We'd like to see consistent 
>>> solutions develop.
>>>
>>> Addison
>>>
>>> Addison Phillips
>>> Globalization Architect -- Lab126
>>>
>>> Internationalization is not a feature.
>>> It is an architecture.
>>>
>>>
>>>    
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: baojie@gmail.com [mailto:baojie@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jie
>>>> Bao
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 11:33 AM
>>>> To: Phillips, Addison
>>>> Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org; public-i18n-core-comments@w3.org; public-
>>>> rif-comments@w3.org
>>>> Subject: Re: I18N issues an OWL2
>>>>
>>>> Hi Addison
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for the suggestions. The OWL and RIF WGs are planning to
>>>> have a joint task force on internationalized strings. There are a
>>>> short state-of-the-art summary[2]  and a specification draft [1].
>>>> Further revisions will be made after further discussions between
>>>> the
>>>> WGs. Your comments are valuable and will definitely be considered.
>>>> I
>>>> will let you updated if there is any progress.
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec
>>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedString
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>>
>>>> Jie
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Phillips, Addison
>>>> <addison@amazon.com> wrote:
>>>>      
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am writing this note in response to Jeremy Carroll's note of 21
>>>>>         
>>>> May [1] and in response to an action item from the
>>>> Internationalization Core WG [2]
>>>>      
>>>>> I've reviewed the various issue tracker materials you have and
>>>>>         
>>>> have some comments. I hope you find these useful. Please note that
>>>> these are currently personal and not WG comments.
>>>>      
>>>>> First, a bit of summary/background. IETF BCP 47 defines language
>>>>>         
>>>> tags. BCP 47 used to be RFC 3066. Currently, it is two RFCs: 4646
>>>> and 4647. The latter of these is about "Matching of Language Tags",
>>>> which is primarily the issue at hand. Generally speaking, there are
>>>> several forms of matching that you might describe in OWL2. Given
>>>> the general type of operations you provide, I think you'd be best
>>>> off if you implemented something similar to "extended filtering" in
>>>> 4647. This is the most "regular expression-like" syntax and allows
>>>> for the most flexibility for applications using it.
>>>>      
>>>>> The problem with the proposals I've seen so far are similar to
>>>>>         
>>>> issues I have often seen with language tags elsewhere at W3C:
>>>> language tags have an internal structure made up of subtags
>>>> separated by hyphens. If one specifies "en*" (or, better, "en" or
>>>> "en-*"), this should match tags like "en-US" or "en-GB", but not
>>>> "ena" or "enf-US". That is, the tokens should be interpreted as
>>>> subtags.
>>>>      
>>>>> In reviewing plans, I noticed this message as the most recent
>>>>>         
>>>> reference about formats and such [3]. This gave me a few concerns:
>>>>      
>>>>> 1. I'm not sure I like the name "internationalizedString". I
>>>>>         
>>>> realize that this is an expansion on xsd:string and thus needs a
>>>> different name. However, it implies that other strings are somehow
>>>> "not internationalized". Perhaps something along the lines of
>>>> "languageString", "nlString" (nl for natural language), or similar.
>>>>      
>>>>> 2. Definitely langPattern should be case insensitive.
>>>>>         
>>>> Alternatively, it is permitted to normalized both the literal and
>>>> the pattern to lowercase for matching purposes.
>>>>      
>>>>> 3. It would be best to use the terminology from RFC 4647 to the
>>>>>         
>>>> extent possible. One question would be whether langPattern could be
>>>> a true "language priority list" (i.e. have more than one "language
>>>> range" in it). That would allow one to say something like:
>>>>      
>>>>>    DatatypeRestriction(owl:internationalizedString langPattern
>>>>>         
>>>> "en,fr")
>>>>      
>>>>> ... which would mean: any string in some flavor of English or
>>>>>         
>>>> French (but not, say, German or Japanese), and inclusive of tags
>>>> such as "fr-CA" and "EN-us".
>>>>      
>>>>> This may be difficult, since I don't think other pattern strings
>>>>>         
>>>> allow for internal structure.
>>>>      
>>>>> I'd be happy, personally and on behalf of the I18N Core WG, to
>>>>>         
>>>> spend time discussing this with your WG as appropriate. Please note
>>>> that I'm also the editor of BCP 47 and that a new revision is
>>>> coming up. It won't affect this discussion, but it is a good reason
>>>> why one should reference the BCP number and not the RFC :-)
>>>>      
>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Addison
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-
>>>>>         
>>>> core/2008AprJun/0065.html
>>>>      
>>>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/04-core-minutes.html#item07
>>>>> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-
>>>>>         
>>>> wg/2008May/0019.html
>>>>      
>>>>> Addison Phillips
>>>>> Globalization Architect -- Lab126
>>>>>
>>>>> Internationalization is not a feature.
>>>>> It is an architecture.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>
>>   
> 


-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres, Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI)
email: axel.polleres@deri.org  url: http://www.polleres.net/

Everything is possible:
rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:Resource.
rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subPropertyOf.
rdf:type rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subClassOf.
rdfs:subClassOf rdf:type owl:SymmetricProperty.
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 21:47:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 July 2008 21:47:22 GMT