W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > January to March 2008


From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:53:49 +0000
Message-ID: <478E44AD.6070503@hpl.hp.com>
To: www-international@w3.org


people may have noted the First Public Workign Drafts of the OWL 1.1 


with comments going to public-owl-comments@w3.org by 19 February.

I am not sure whether the I18N activity still tries to review each new 
Rec track work at some point, but in case it does, I thought I would 
make a few insider remarks that are relevant for such a review.

Also note that Addision has picked up already on the RFC 3066 stale 

No mention is made of I18N issues in these documents.

The OWL WG has a charter commitment to produce less technical 
documentation, which may be easier to review. But this is not included 
in the FPWD.  Procedurally, it might be worth noting glancing at these 
documents, being baffled, and explicitly delaying an I18N review until 
publication of say a "Use Case and Requirements" document, a less formal 
descriptive specification or a user guide (as specified in


A further point to highlight is that, as well as Addison's comment, 
there is one I18N issue on the issue list, which concerns language tags.
OWL 1.1 makes it a lot easier to say talk about the set of integers 
between 20000 and 21000. The issue is that similar mechanisms could (and 
in my view) should be added to allow talking about the set of plain 
literals with language tag 'es' or matching the language range '*-US', etc.

That issue is

So, rather than encouraging review of these WDs I am more encouraging 
comment about what is missing (readable documentation; support for 
language tags and language ranges in creating new sets of literals).

Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2008 17:54:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 21 September 2016 22:37:29 UTC