W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > February 2009

ACTION-275: Unicode, XML, RDF references

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 10:45:21 +0000
Message-Id: <DD37CED1-7D46-4C38-BFA6-6C2516FFDDBE@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

I believe this completes my action.

==============================

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax

"""[UNICODE]
The Unicode Standard Version 3.0, Addison Wesley, Reading MA, 2000,  
ISBN: 0-201-61633-5, http://www.unicode.org/unicode/standard/ 
standard.html"""

"""[XML]
Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.1. Tim Bray, Jean Paoli, C. M.  
Sperberg-McQueen, Eve Maler, François Yergeau and John Cowan, eds.  
W3C Recommendation 16 August 2006, edited in place 29 September 2006."""

Not referenced in the document. Should be removed.

"""Anonymous individuals are analogous to blank nodes in RDF [RDF  
Syntax]."""

I suspect that should reference:
	http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/
in particular:
	http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-blank-nodes
(or latest version).

==============================
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Mapping_to_RDF_Graphs

Only references:
"""[RDF Semantics]
	RDF Semantics. Patrick Hayes, Editor, W3C Recommendation, 10  
February 2004"""
I suspect it should reference other bits...perhaps concepts and  
abstract syntax as well.

==============================
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RDF-Based_Semantics

"""[RDF Concepts]	
	Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Syntax.  
Graham Klyne and Jeremy J. Carroll, eds., W3C Recommendation, 10  
February 2004.
[RDF Semantics]
	RDF Semantics. Patrick Hayes, ed., W3C Recommendation, 10 February  
2004."""

I don't know if they are both  normative, but should they reference  
"latest version"? I suspect not.

==============================
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedString

"""[UNICODE]
	The Unicode Standard, Version 5.1.0. The Unicode Consortium."""

Should be generic (note the inconsistency introduced...the FS can't  
represent such strings).

==============================
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/ManchesterSyntax

"""[UNICODE]
The Unicode Standard Version 3.0, Addison Wesley, Reading MA, 2000,  
ISBN: 0-201-61633-5. http://www.unicode.org/unicode/standard/ 
standard.html"""

Should be generic.

I think everything else is informative.

==============================
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/XML_Serialization
"""[UNICODE]
The Unicode Standard Version 3.0, Addison Wesley, Reading MA, 2000,  
ISBN: 0-201-61633-5, http://www.unicode.org/unicode/standard/ 
standard.html"""

Should be generic.

"[UNISEC]" ref missing.

==============================
Following <http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#sec-RefUnicode> it seems  
that the fix is to:
	1) update to the latest version of unicode.
	2) append "as it may from time to time be revised or amended."
The unicode folks <http://www.unicode.org/unicode/standard/versions/ 
#Citations> have:
	"""The Unicode Standard, Version 3.0 or later"""
and
	"""The Unicode Consortium. The Unicode Standard, Version 5.1.0,  
defined by: The Unicode Standard, Version 5.0 (Boston, MA, Addison- 
Wesley, 2007. ISBN 0-321-48091-0), as amended by Unicode 5.1.0
http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.1.0/""""

This is the reference in the charmod document:

"""Unicode The Unicode Consortium, The Unicode Standard, Version 4,  
ISBN 0-321-18578-1, as updated from time to time by the publication  
of new versions. (See http://www.unicode.org/unicode/standard/ 
versions for the latest version and additional information on  
versions of the standard and of the Unicode Character Database)."""

The current version is 5.1.0, so I suggest:

""""Unicode The Unicode Consortium, The Unicode Standard, Version   
5.1.0, ISBN 0-321-48091-0, as updated from time to time by the  
publication of new versions. (See http://www.unicode.org/unicode/ 
standard/versions for the latest version and additional information  
on versions of the standard and of the Unicode Character Database)."""

Not sure what to do about XML. XML 1.1 is the highest number but,  
arguably, replaced by XML 1.0 5th edition.

Cheers,
Bijan.
	
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 10:45:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 4 February 2009 10:45:05 GMT