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

Re: OWL 1.1 FPWDs

From: Addison Phillips <addison@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:38:38 -0800
Message-ID: <478EDBCE.1000705@yahoo-inc.com>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
CC: www-international@w3.org

Hi Jeremy,

[this note is a personal reply, chair hat OFF]

I did indeed note these recent FPWDs and I also did, indeed, note the 
rather high access barrier. I was contemplating bringing up the language 
matching issue--after all, we (mostly you) wrote a paper about it some 
years ago now, so I was curious to see if that came to anything......

The I18N Core WG has gotten off to a slow start this year. I expect that 
the WG will review aspects of these document at some point in their 
lives, although perhaps not during FPWD.

I note that the OWL WG has responded positively about my comment about 
the stale reference.

In any case, thank you very much for sending this note along. It's a 
huge help to the I18N efforts at W3C when we get comments like this!

Addison

-- 
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.
Chair -- W3C Internationalization Core WG

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.


Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> people may have noted the First Public Workign Drafts of the OWL 1.1 
> specifications.
> 
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/owl11-syntax
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/owl11-semantics
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/owl11-mapping-to-rdf
> 
> 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 
> reference:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2008Jan/0001
> 
> 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
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/06/OWLCharter.html#deliverables
> ).
> 
> 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
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/71
> 
> 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).
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2008 04:41:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:17:15 GMT