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: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:13:56 -0400
Message-ID: <b6b357670808201013q78fee2d0mf45cacccecf66714@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Axel Polleres" <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Cc: public-rdf-text@w3.org

Hi Axel

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org> wrote:
> 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?

The best place to look at is in the OWL 2 syntax document

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

Best

Jie
>
>>> 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 Wednesday, 20 August 2008 17:14:33 GMT

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