- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 20:01:45 +0200
- To: Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>
- CC: public-rif-comments@w3.org, public-owl-wg@w3.org, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Message-ID: <4874FD09.8010200@w3.org>
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 since..) > 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... Ivan > > Jie > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 6:12 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> 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] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#InterpVocab >> [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternalizedString >> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008May/0162.html >> >> 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. >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Jie >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu> wrote: >>>> I have put some scratch for the internationalized string document at >>>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternalizedString >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Jie >>>> >>>> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> 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] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008May/0060 >>>>> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008May/0021.html >>>>> [3] http://www.w3.org/1999/06/REC-xml-stylesheet-19990629/ >>>>> >>>>> >> -- >> >> 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, 9 July 2008 18:02:31 UTC