RE: encoding specification in the syntax document?

Hello,

Done; here is the diff:

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Syntax&diff=11929&oldid=11903

Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ian Horrocks
> Sent: 27 August 2008 18:02
> To: Boris Motik
> Cc: W3C OWL Working Group; Ivan Herman
> Subject: Re: encoding specification in the syntax document?
> 
> 
> Sounds pretty editorial to me -- I suggest you make the relevant
> addition.
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
> On 27 Aug 2008, at 08:22, Ivan Herman wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > 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 16:26:03 UTC