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

Re: I18N issues an OWL2

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:19:28 +0900
Message-ID: <487B1A20.8030605@w3.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, "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>

Ivan Herman さんは書きました:
>
>
> 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...


This caveat might be a severe problem of this approach. The BCP 47 
language tags are relying on a generate approach using the ABNF in BCP 
47 (so-called "well formed" language tags), and in addition the registry 
of sub tags. I'm not sure if it will be feasible to put these two types 
of conformance in relation to the planned OWL2 data type hierarchy, 
though I think it would be highly desirable ...

Felix


>
> 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
>
>
Received on Monday, 14 July 2008 09:20:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 14 July 2008 09:20:32 GMT