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

Re: rif:text / owl:internationalizedString

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 13:17:36 -0400
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <24556.1210958256@ubuhebe>


> Sandro Hawke wrote:
> > The recommendation from the Semantic Web Coordination Group on this
> > matter of a new datatype [1][2] is to proceed with the single, small
> > Recommendation.  It's not clear what namespace to use, yet, but
> > hopefully it will become clearer soon.   (I'm leaning towards using the
> > XML Schema namespace, if that WG will consent.)
> > 
> > So -- any volunteers, from either RIF or OWL to be an editor of this
> > document?  Ideally, I'd like one from each WG, since it's not clear yet
> > which WG will formally carry it through the process.  For an example of
> > a very short Rec, see [3].
> > 
> >     -- Sandro
> > 
> > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008May/0060
> > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008May/0021.html
> > [3] http://www.w3.org/1999/06/REC-xml-stylesheet-19990629/
> 
> Can we have some discussion first please?

Sure.  It has been in the RIF BLD design for almost a year, I think,
with no negative comments.  It would likely go to Last Call in two
weeks, if not for this OWL interaction and some editorial organization
issues that ended up with it included in a less mature document.  On the
RIF side, I'd still expect it to go to LC by the end of the September,
at the latest.  If OWL does it, I'd hope for LC on this little document
at the July F2F.

But you're right -- OWL WG hasn't talked about it at a meeting yet, just
Peter's announcement [4] and my reply.   We should get it on an OWL
agenda soon.

> A not dissimilar design was considered and rejected in a long and 
> difficult discussion by RDF Core and we should review their (many) notes.

It'd be great if you could make a first stab, or even remember who to
ask.  My recollection of conversations at the time with a WG member
(probably DanC or Eric Miller) was that they felt constrained by some
notion that XML Schema datatypes had to be, in some crucial way,
language independent.  If that was really the constraint, I'm willing to
try again and see if the current XML Schema WG can convinces us the
constraint makes sense. 

     -- Sandro

[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008May/0019
Received on Friday, 16 May 2008 17:20:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 16 May 2008 17:20:03 GMT