- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 19:49:51 -0400
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Cc: "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>
> 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: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.
I like it. I don't see any problem with it (so far), and I agree it's
more elegant.
I imagine RDF core considered this option. I'm curious why they didn't
take it. I'll ping a few people.
-- Sandro
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 23:52:02 UTC