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: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:30:16 +0100
Message-ID: <48A07728.10702@deri.org>
To: Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>
CC: public-rdf-text@w3.org

It was only Addison and me in the call, so I just summarize by putting 
some comments inline to my summary sent before, see below.

Jie, if you are ok with that, and nobody else objexcts, I will try - 
over the next week - to incorporate this statues into

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

best,

Axel

Jie Bao wrote:
> 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

Addison and I agreed that the for the lang tag we would allow the same 
lexical space as xml:lang. Actually, xml:lang is defineid implicitly 
anyway, referencing BCP 47, BTW, see also the last issue, below.

>> 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.


Jie, please elaborate. Actually, this doesn't seem to need to go into
  http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec
but is rather part of the OWL spec. Can you send a pointer again, where 
the datatype facets of OWL2 are explained in more detail?

>> 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

The replacement for RFC4646 will resolve that by defining formal 
canonicalization for lang tags which can be seen as a preprocessing step 
for the langpattern matching of RFC4647 ...

This relates to issue 3 below: If we reference BCP 47 instead of RFC4646 
we would get this "update" for free.

Addison says that lang tags are always defined in a forward-compatible 
manner, so we shouldn't run into trouble with that.

>> 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,

Addison and I both agreed that defining rdf:text as a supertyp of 
xs:string would be desirable... the question is more:
Are we "allowed" to do this or would it have implications to existing 
XML specs?

>> What about  "blabla" (aka plain literal in RDF)? is this also a shortcut for
>> "blabla@"^^rdf:text?

We didn't touch that issue at the moment. In RIF, currently there is no 
distinction made between "plain" literals and xs:string.

>> 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.

BCP 47, see above.



best,
Axel

-- 
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 Monday, 11 August 2008 17:31:18 GMT

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