- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:22:27 +0200
- To: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- CC: 'W3C OWL Working Group' <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <48B500B3.9080205@w3.org>
Boris Motik wrote: > Hello, > > The strings in the structural specification are in UCS (see Section 2), and the IRIs are just like in the respective specs. Hence, > it seems to me that the structural specification is unambiguous regarding this point. > Ah. Right, I missed that. > Now it is true that we don't specify how to encode documents containing an ontology written in functional-style syntax. We could add > a sentence that people SHOULD use UTF-8 for that purpose. If everyone agrees, we can call this an editorial change and I can just do > it. I am personally o.k. with that, but that is only me... Thanks Ivan P.S. Small editorial point: http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#sec-RefUnicode gives some advices on the way W3C docs should refer to UCS and Unicode. You may want that into account. > > Regards, > > Boris > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org] >> Sent: 26 August 2008 16:32 >> To: Boris Motik >> Cc: W3C OWL Working Group >> Subject: encoding specification in the syntax document? >> >> Boris, >> >> while looking at the UCS vs Unicode question (to be discussed >> separately) a question came up: what is exactly the situation with the >> functional syntax? It does not say whether the ontology is defined using >> UCS or Unicode (let us put aside for a moment which one) and which >> encoding is used. Shouldn't it be said somewhere? >> >> Of course the fact that it uses Unicode is, sort of, indirectly there: >> it uses IRI and the literals' lexical spaces are, I presume, all in >> UCS/Unicode (does it say in the XML Schema doc? Probably). But it is >> better to make it explicit. >> >> But the encoding issue still remains. We could say that it is encoded in >> UTF-8 (this is what Turtle does, for example), or we could specify that >> UTF-8 is the default and introduce another thingy in the grammar to >> possibly override that. I personally do not see an issue in sticking to >> UTF-8 (although it is not an efficient encoding for Asian languages...). >> But we should say it somewhere... >> >> Did I miss something? >> >> Cheers >> >> Ivan >> >> >> -- >> >> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html >> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2008 07:23:00 UTC