- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:33:08 +0100
- To: "Birte Glimm" <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: Owl Dev <public-owl-dev@w3.org>, Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>, axel@polleres.net, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
[OWL WG, please see: <http://www.w3.org/mid/ 492f2b0b0810201028w4184475csa51d27429e05bc21@mail.gmail.com>] Hi Birte, On Oct 20, 2008, at 6:28 PM, Birte Glimm wrote: > Hi all, > > I just wanted to raise a discussion about the currently proposed > assumption that the alphabet of the String-based datatypes is > unbounded. I'm just wondering which text you think requires that. For xsd:string, it clearly seems that there is a finite alphabet: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#string Oh, but rdf:text: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/ InternationalizedStringSpec#Definition_of_the_rdf:text_Datatype doesn't seem to have any constraint on alphabet. Though in: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/DTB#Symbol_Spaces we read: """rdf:text (http://www.w3.org/2007/rif#text, for text strings with language tags attached). This symbol space represents text strings with a language tag attached. The lexical space of rdf:text is the set of all Unicode strings of the form ...@LANG, i.e., strings that end with @LANG where LANG is a language identifier as defined in [BCP-47]""" which seems to restrict it to Unicode (3.0?) strings. I agree that allowing an unbounded alphabet is absurd. XML has had to face this as well. I think we should suck it up. I've cced the editors of the rdf:text document so they can take note of the issue. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 20 October 2008 21:33:49 UTC