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

Re: rif:text / owl:internationalizedString

From: Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 13:02:16 -0400
Message-ID: <b6b357670809031002l42d0fc7fo90e1e84eb2018e4a@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=InternationalizedStringSpec&diff=12101&oldid=11920

The internationalized string spec is updated according to recent
discussions. Comments are welcome.

Jie

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Ian Horrocks
<ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> Seems reasonable to me (toss of a coin that is).
>
> I think that it is easy from a practical point of view -- I suggest
> something like "least significant digit of NASDAQ at close of business on
> 2008xxyy in range 0 to 4 means we use owl namespace; otherwise we use rif
> namespace".
>
> Ian
>
>
> On 9 Jul 2008, at 19:01, Ivan Herman wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Jie Bao wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks, Ivan
>>> My understanding is that you propose to vote among rif, owl or a new
>>> namespaces.
>>
>> That is indeed my opinion (but there have been objections to my opinion
>> since..)
>>
>>>            Who will "toss a coin" - the OWL people, the RIF people,
>>> or both?
>>
>> In my opinion the coin should be tossed together, so to say (I am not sure
>> how:-). More seriously: this is planned to be a 'joint' document, ie, such
>> decision should be done together...
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>>
>>> Jie
>>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 6:12 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thank Jie a lot.
>>>>
>>>> One option you put forward is to add _INTERNATIONALIZEDSTRING_ to the
>>>> rdf
>>>> namespace. While this indeed looks as the most natural fit, the way the
>>>> RDF
>>>> Semantics is formulated[1] is by explicitly listing the RDF vocabulary,
>>>> including the only datatype that RDF introduces (namely rdf:XMLLiteral).
>>>> Ie,
>>>> from a very formal point of view, _adding_ a new term to that namespace
>>>> might be a bit messy; does it belong to the formal RDF vocabulary per
>>>> RDF
>>>> Semantics or not? We may want to keep away from that. [3] seems to say
>>>> that
>>>> the XML Schema group ('guardians' of the xsd namespace), is not really
>>>> in
>>>> favour of the xsd namespace.
>>>>
>>>> Looking at your options this leaves, in my view, with the rif or owl
>>>> namespaces, which may have to be decided through the toss of a coin:-).
>>>> Another alternative is to define a completely separate namespace for
>>>> extra
>>>> RDF stuffs, but I am not sure that is nice...
>>>>
>>>> Ivan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#InterpVocab
>>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternalizedString
>>>> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008May/0162.html
>>>>
>>>> Jie Bao wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> As been suggested by Sandro, due to the closeness of rif:text and
>>>>> owl:internationalizedString, the two working groups might have a joint
>>>>> effort on combining the two constructs. There is an initial draft for
>>>>> the specification of internationalized strings in the both two
>>>>> languages. Comments are welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Jie
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have put some scratch for the internationalized string document at
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternalizedString
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jie
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> 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/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> 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
>
>



-- 
Jie
http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~baojie
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2008 17:02:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 3 September 2008 17:02:52 GMT