- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:59:03 -0400 (EDT)
- To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: lang tag stuff ISSUE-71
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:43:13 +0100
> I have reviewed the Carroll/Phillips paper Multilingual RDF and OWL.
>
> The mechanism proposed there would probably not sit well with this group.
[...]
Yup. :-)
> ====
>
> A smaller step around which I believe it would be easier to find
> consensus would be to create a new datatype constructor
>
> LiteralsWithLang(langtag)
>
> e.g.
>
> LiteralWithLang("en-US")
>
> that given a langtag is the (conceptually infinite) set of plain
> literals with that language tag (case insensitive comparison).
>
> A triples syntax for that may be:
>
> _:a rdf:type owl:PlainLiterals .
> _:a owl:withLanguageTag "en-US"^^xsd:language .
>
>
> I believe that in OWL Full this would be equivalent to the
> non-XMLLiteral part of the Carroll/Philipps paper, and that this is
> more likely to be acceptable to the OWL DL community.
>
> This does not address XML and XHTML integration which was one of the goals in the paper.
>
> It also leaves the non-trivial task of converting the ontology in RFC
> 4646/4647 and the various ISO standards into OWL as an exercise for
> the reader.
>
> I am hoping for some feedback before making a proposal to close.
Yes, this sort of thing is more palatable. I suggest having a lang
"facet" and then using the syntax for datatype restrictions.
> Jeremy
peter
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2008 18:02:45 UTC