W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-comments@w3.org > July 2008

RE: I18N issues an OWL2

From: Phillips, Addison <addison@amazon.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 12:57:33 -0700
To: Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>
CC: "public-owl-wg@w3.org" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core-comments@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, "public-rif-comments@w3.org" <public-rif-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA013BB64C74@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com>
Hi,

Would you consider including I18N WG in your joint task force? These issues seem to arise fairly frequently. We'd like to see consistent solutions develop.

Addison

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: baojie@gmail.com [mailto:baojie@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jie
> Bao
> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 11:33 AM
> To: Phillips, Addison
> Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org; public-i18n-core-comments@w3.org; public-
> rif-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: I18N issues an OWL2
>
> Hi Addison
>
> Thank you for the suggestions. The OWL and RIF WGs are planning to
> have a joint task force on internationalized strings. There are a
> short state-of-the-art summary[2]  and a specification draft [1].
> Further revisions will be made after further discussions between
> the
> WGs. Your comments are valuable and will definitely be considered.
> I
> will let you updated if there is any progress.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec

> [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedString

>
> Best
>
> Jie
>
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Phillips, Addison
> <addison@amazon.com> wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > I am writing this note in response to Jeremy Carroll's note of 21
> May [1] and in response to an action item from the
> Internationalization Core WG [2]
> >
> > I've reviewed the various issue tracker materials you have and
> have some comments. I hope you find these useful. Please note that
> these are currently personal and not WG comments.
> >
> > First, a bit of summary/background. IETF BCP 47 defines language
> tags. BCP 47 used to be RFC 3066. Currently, it is two RFCs: 4646
> and 4647. The latter of these is about "Matching of Language Tags",
> which is primarily the issue at hand. Generally speaking, there are
> several forms of matching that you might describe in OWL2. Given
> the general type of operations you provide, I think you'd be best
> off if you implemented something similar to "extended filtering" in
> 4647. This is the most "regular expression-like" syntax and allows
> for the most flexibility for applications using it.
> >
> > The problem with the proposals I've seen so far are similar to
> issues I have often seen with language tags elsewhere at W3C:
> language tags have an internal structure made up of subtags
> separated by hyphens. If one specifies "en*" (or, better, "en" or
> "en-*"), this should match tags like "en-US" or "en-GB", but not
> "ena" or "enf-US". That is, the tokens should be interpreted as
> subtags.
> >
> > In reviewing plans, I noticed this message as the most recent
> reference about formats and such [3]. This gave me a few concerns:
> >
> > 1. I'm not sure I like the name "internationalizedString". I
> realize that this is an expansion on xsd:string and thus needs a
> different name. However, it implies that other strings are somehow
> "not internationalized". Perhaps something along the lines of
> "languageString", "nlString" (nl for natural language), or similar.
> >
> > 2. Definitely langPattern should be case insensitive.
> Alternatively, it is permitted to normalized both the literal and
> the pattern to lowercase for matching purposes.
> >
> > 3. It would be best to use the terminology from RFC 4647 to the
> extent possible. One question would be whether langPattern could be
> a true "language priority list" (i.e. have more than one "language
> range" in it). That would allow one to say something like:
> >
> >    DatatypeRestriction(owl:internationalizedString langPattern
> "en,fr")
> >
> > ... which would mean: any string in some flavor of English or
> French (but not, say, German or Japanese), and inclusive of tags
> such as "fr-CA" and "EN-us".
> >
> > This may be difficult, since I don't think other pattern strings
> allow for internal structure.
> >
> > I'd be happy, personally and on behalf of the I18N Core WG, to
> spend time discussing this with your WG as appropriate. Please note
> that I'm also the editor of BCP 47 and that a new revision is
> coming up. It won't affect this discussion, but it is a good reason
> why one should reference the BCP number and not the RFC :-)
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Addison
> >
> > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-

> core/2008AprJun/0065.html
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/04-core-minutes.html#item07

> > [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-

> wg/2008May/0019.html
> >
> >
> > Addison Phillips
> > Globalization Architect -- Lab126
> >
> > Internationalization is not a feature.
> > It is an architecture.
> >
> >
> >
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 19:58:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 July 2008 19:58:16 GMT