Re: encoding specification in the syntax document?

Ack:-)

Thanks

I.

Boris Motik wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> 

-- 

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