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@[129.2.178.76]>
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.

[snip]

(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
>where).
>
>[[
>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...
  -JH

-- 
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)
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Thursday, 30 January 2003 18:12:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:57 GMT