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

Re: I18N issues an OWL2

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:01:32 +0200
Message-ID: <487872EC.2040209@w3.org>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
CC: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com>, Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>, "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>, Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>


Axel Polleres wrote:
[snip]

> Sure!
> 
> As for the namespace, I personally prefer rdf:  sharing jos' arguments 
> here that it is in my opinion NOT problematic to do so. Several rdf: 
> namespaced properties already do not have a specified formal semantics 
> (the reification having been mentioned already, so what).
>

Yes, that is indeed a good point.

[snip]

> 
>  A probably more feasible solution would be to do a real type hierarchy,
> for language tags and - instead of a datatype 
> owl:internationalizedString or rif:text which has pairs of strings and 
> language tags as lexical space - define separate datatypes and 
> (subtypes) for each lang-tag, ie.
> 
> use:
> 
> message("Hello"^^lang:en-US)
> 
> where e.g. lang:en-US is a subtype of lang:en, i.e.
> that would also imply
> 
> message("Hello"^^lang:en)
> 
>  (just as xsd:integer is a subtype of xsd:integer of xsd:decimal in the 
> XML Schema type hierarchy, see 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#built-in-datatypes)
> 
> Anything wrong with that? To me this seems much cleaner than this 
> fiddling around with pairs of strings and lang-tags.
> 
[snip]

This is indeed quite nice, I must say. Addison already referred to one 
caveat that I intended to raise, namely the possibly high number of 
language tags (by the way, [1] gives a fairly readable overview of 
those). Let us see where that discussion goes...

Another issue is that we have to see is how well this works with the OWL 
design (I have explicitly added Boris on the cc list to draw his 
attention:-). My understanding of the current datatype restriction 
design[2] is that one can define facets for a specific datatype, but not 
across several datatypes; on the other hand in this proposal the 
datatype for 'en-us' and 'en-gb' would be different and both would be 
different from 'en' (although 'en-us' and 'en-gb' would both be subtypes 
of 'en'). How could I define facets that involves all these? Would that 
work well with the OWL design? I actually hope we can find a way, 
because the usage of these URI-s looks quite elegant...

Cheers

Ivan


[1] http://www.w3.org/International/articles/language-tags/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#Datatype_Restrictions


-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf


Received on Saturday, 12 July 2008 09:02:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 12 July 2008 09:02:33 GMT