W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-text@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: Phone bridge setup (was Re: I18N issues an OWL2)

From: Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:07:55 -0400
Message-ID: <b6b357670808111007g329fd526v55c266e4c1b0e71b@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-rdf-text@w3.org

There is an unplanned emergence meeting I have to attend right now.
Sorry for missing the meeting today. I will check the irc log for
summary.

Jie

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org> wrote:
> Let me attempt to summarize what "is left" from last time and where we
> seemed (from my point of view) to agree... this should give us kind of an
> agenda for today.
>
> best,
> Axel
> -------------
>
> Summarizing starting points for today:
>
> 1) We seemed to agree last time on the following:
>
> *) One datatype rdf:text
>
> *) value space for rdf:text:
>
> pairs such that the first argument of the pair is a Unicode string
> and the second one is a valid language tag following
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4646.txt
>
> *) lexical space (notation in presentation syntax):
>
>  "string@tag"^^rdf:text
>
> rather than
>
>  (string, tag)^^rdf:text
>
> with shortcut notation:
>
>  "string"@tag
>
> 2) We seemed to agree last time that subtag matching according to RFC4647
> can be done by built-ins in RIF and datatype facets in OWL:
>
> - for RIF this means a builtin:
>
>   pred:matches-langtag( arg1 , arg2  )
>
> intended domains:
> - arg1 rdf:text
> - arg2 valid language range according to
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4647.txt
>
> - for OWL this means:
>
>  ??? Jie to elaborate on datatype-facets in OWL.
>
>
> 3) Issue 1: What about "subtypes" which cannot be determined by sub-pattern
> matching?
>
> "art-lojban" and "jbo"
> "zh-cmn" or "cmn" or  "zh"
>
> see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0288.html
>
>
> 4) Issue 2: xs:string
>
>  did we agree on here xs:string is located here, i.e. whether it should be
> the subtype od rdf:text with an empty lang-tag?
>
> Note that would mean that
>
>  "blabla"^^xs:string is syntactic sugar for  "blabla@"^^rdf:text,
>
> What about  "blabla" (aka plain literal in RDF)? is this also a shortcut for
> "blabla@"^^rdf:text?
>
>
> 5) Issue 3: Whether to supersede RFC 3066 (the one used by RDF and currently
> by RIF) with RFC 4646 (Tags for Identifying Languages) ...
> I kind of imagine tat I sensed last time agreement towards the newer spec
> RFC4646, would that cause trouble wrt 3066 upwards-compatibility? Kind of
> similar to the "plain literals" issue 2 above.
>
Received on Monday, 11 August 2008 17:08:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 10 December 2008 15:43:56 GMT