W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > January 2003

Re: ISSUE: XMLLiteral and xml:lang

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:12:43 -0500
Message-Id: <p05200f74ba5f5fbbbaf8@[]>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

Jeremy/Dan -

>(This message is too long - I will send a shorter follow up which consists
>only of test cases on the glitch - you may prefer to read that one only).
>>    Let me see if I understand - this one, like the annotations
>>  question is with respect to whether these features of our language,
>>  which are in OWL Full (by the RDF inclusion principle :->) should
>>  also be in Owl Lite and Owl DL.
>Correct, since they are both critical for I18N objectives and requirements, I
>would be very unhappy if they are not in OWL Lite.


(long description deleted)

>Proposed Solutions
>1: accept the RDF Core position and leave this as implementation dependent -
>This is my preference. I would be surpirsed if Stanton, for example, would be
>happy with this.

if I understand it, this would require us not doing anything - i.e. 
this is the current situation (assuming we fix the annotation issue 
per today's telecon)

>2: decide that the OWL requirements (support of XHTML and friends) are wholly
>met using the "Exclusive Canonicalization, without comments, and with empty
>InclusiveNamespaces PrefixList" (we could change that to with comments if
>people preferred), and add text like the following somewhere (don't know
>When reading RDF/XML documents OWL processors SHOULD use the freedom granted
>them under para 7.2.17 of RDF Syntax by using the Exclusive Canonicalization,
>without comments, and with empty InclusiveNamespaces PrefixList.
>Other variations may only be used on specific user instruction.
>3: Make the above comment to RDF Core suggesting they are more specific.

  it seems to me that this is completely and RDF issue, and only 
impacts OWL because OWL documents are RDF documents (making us 
uniquely qualified to comment on them) - if that is true, I would 
support the third option, with a recourse of going to option 1 or 2 
if RDF Core doesn't comply  - this latter might or might not be a 
threat to our LC status depending on how liberally one interprets 
"editorial change" and if we hold off creating a test case until we 
hear from RDF Core - seems to me endorsing option 1 requires the 
least work...

Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
Received on Thursday, 30 January 2003 18:12:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:51 UTC