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: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:19:11 +0900
Message-ID: <48A12B5F.4050803@w3.org>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
CC: Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>, public-rdf-text@w3.org

Axel Polleres さんは書きました:
>
> 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?

As long as you do not expect XML-processors to "understand" that 
supertyp relation you should be fine. But it cannot hurt to ask the XML 
folks, when you have a concrete piece of text in a draft about the relation.

Felix

>
>>> 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
>
Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2008 06:20:16 GMT

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