Re: rif:text / owl:internationalizedString

Jie Bao wrote:
> Thanks, Ivan
> My understanding is that you propose to vote among rif, owl or a new
> namespaces. 

That is indeed my opinion (but there have been objections to my opinion 

>             Who will "toss a coin" - the OWL people, the RIF people,
> or both?

In my opinion the coin should be tossed together, so to say (I am not 
sure how:-). More seriously: this is planned to be a 'joint' document, 
ie, such decision should be done together...


> Jie
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 6:12 AM, Ivan Herman <> wrote:
>> Thank Jie a lot.
>> One option you put forward is to add _INTERNATIONALIZEDSTRING_ to the rdf
>> namespace. While this indeed looks as the most natural fit, the way the RDF
>> Semantics is formulated[1] is by explicitly listing the RDF vocabulary,
>> including the only datatype that RDF introduces (namely rdf:XMLLiteral). Ie,
>> from a very formal point of view, _adding_ a new term to that namespace
>> might be a bit messy; does it belong to the formal RDF vocabulary per RDF
>> Semantics or not? We may want to keep away from that. [3] seems to say that
>> the XML Schema group ('guardians' of the xsd namespace), is not really in
>> favour of the xsd namespace.
>> Looking at your options this leaves, in my view, with the rif or owl
>> namespaces, which may have to be decided through the toss of a coin:-).
>> Another alternative is to define a completely separate namespace for extra
>> RDF stuffs, but I am not sure that is nice...
>> Ivan
>> [1]
>> [2]
>> [3]
>> Jie Bao wrote:
>>> As been suggested by Sandro, due to the closeness of rif:text and
>>> owl:internationalizedString, the two working groups might have a joint
>>> effort on combining the two constructs. There is an initial draft for
>>> the specification of internationalized strings in the both two
>>> languages. Comments are welcome.
>>> Thanks
>>> Jie
>>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Jie Bao <> wrote:
>>>> I have put some scratch for the internationalized string document at
>>>> Best
>>>> Jie
>>>> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Sandro Hawke <> wrote:
>>>>> The recommendation from the Semantic Web Coordination Group on this
>>>>> matter of a new datatype [1][2] is to proceed with the single, small
>>>>> Recommendation.  It's not clear what namespace to use, yet, but
>>>>> hopefully it will become clearer soon.   (I'm leaning towards using the
>>>>> XML Schema namespace, if that WG will consent.)
>>>>> So -- any volunteers, from either RIF or OWL to be an editor of this
>>>>> document?  Ideally, I'd like one from each WG, since it's not clear yet
>>>>> which WG will formally carry it through the process.  For an example of
>>>>> a very short Rec, see [3].
>>>>>   -- Sandro
>>>>> [1]
>>>>> [2]
>>>>> [3]
>> --
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home:
>> PGP Key:
>> FOAF:


Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
PGP Key:

Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 18:02:31 UTC