- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 22:46:35 +0100
- To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- CC: Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>, "Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com>, Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, Alan Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>, "public-owl-wg@w3.org" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core-comments@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, "public-rif-comments@w3.org" <public-rif-comments@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Felix Sasaki wrote: > > Jie Bao さんは書きました: >> Hi, Ian, Alan and Axel >> >> Per Addison's suggestion, would you prefer to have a joint task force >> from the three WGs: OWL, RIF and I18N? If that works, Axel (RIF), >> Addison (I18N) and me (OWL) could be the pointer person for next >> steps. Any other idea or comment? >> > > it would be great to have a joint call, maybe even before the to be > expected "August summer break". That might be sufficient to go through > Addison's comments, to judge whether we should install a task force, how > long it should work etc. How about next week? > > Felix sounds good to me. Axel >> Best >> >> Jie >> >> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Phillips, Addison <addison@amazon.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Would you consider including I18N WG in your joint task force? These >>> issues seem to arise fairly frequently. We'd like to see consistent >>> solutions develop. >>> >>> Addison >>> >>> Addison Phillips >>> Globalization Architect -- Lab126 >>> >>> Internationalization is not a feature. >>> It is an architecture. >>> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: baojie@gmail.com [mailto:baojie@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jie >>>> Bao >>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 11:33 AM >>>> To: Phillips, Addison >>>> Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org; public-i18n-core-comments@w3.org; public- >>>> rif-comments@w3.org >>>> Subject: Re: I18N issues an OWL2 >>>> >>>> Hi Addison >>>> >>>> Thank you for the suggestions. The OWL and RIF WGs are planning to >>>> have a joint task force on internationalized strings. There are a >>>> short state-of-the-art summary[2] and a specification draft [1]. >>>> Further revisions will be made after further discussions between >>>> the >>>> WGs. Your comments are valuable and will definitely be considered. >>>> I >>>> will let you updated if there is any progress. >>>> >>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec >>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedString >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Jie >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Phillips, Addison >>>> <addison@amazon.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> All, >>>>> >>>>> I am writing this note in response to Jeremy Carroll's note of 21 >>>>> >>>> May [1] and in response to an action item from the >>>> Internationalization Core WG [2] >>>> >>>>> I've reviewed the various issue tracker materials you have and >>>>> >>>> have some comments. I hope you find these useful. Please note that >>>> these are currently personal and not WG comments. >>>> >>>>> First, a bit of summary/background. IETF BCP 47 defines language >>>>> >>>> tags. BCP 47 used to be RFC 3066. Currently, it is two RFCs: 4646 >>>> and 4647. The latter of these is about "Matching of Language Tags", >>>> which is primarily the issue at hand. Generally speaking, there are >>>> several forms of matching that you might describe in OWL2. Given >>>> the general type of operations you provide, I think you'd be best >>>> off if you implemented something similar to "extended filtering" in >>>> 4647. This is the most "regular expression-like" syntax and allows >>>> for the most flexibility for applications using it. >>>> >>>>> The problem with the proposals I've seen so far are similar to >>>>> >>>> issues I have often seen with language tags elsewhere at W3C: >>>> language tags have an internal structure made up of subtags >>>> separated by hyphens. If one specifies "en*" (or, better, "en" or >>>> "en-*"), this should match tags like "en-US" or "en-GB", but not >>>> "ena" or "enf-US". That is, the tokens should be interpreted as >>>> subtags. >>>> >>>>> In reviewing plans, I noticed this message as the most recent >>>>> >>>> reference about formats and such [3]. This gave me a few concerns: >>>> >>>>> 1. I'm not sure I like the name "internationalizedString". I >>>>> >>>> realize that this is an expansion on xsd:string and thus needs a >>>> different name. However, it implies that other strings are somehow >>>> "not internationalized". Perhaps something along the lines of >>>> "languageString", "nlString" (nl for natural language), or similar. >>>> >>>>> 2. Definitely langPattern should be case insensitive. >>>>> >>>> Alternatively, it is permitted to normalized both the literal and >>>> the pattern to lowercase for matching purposes. >>>> >>>>> 3. It would be best to use the terminology from RFC 4647 to the >>>>> >>>> extent possible. One question would be whether langPattern could be >>>> a true "language priority list" (i.e. have more than one "language >>>> range" in it). That would allow one to say something like: >>>> >>>>> DatatypeRestriction(owl:internationalizedString langPattern >>>>> >>>> "en,fr") >>>> >>>>> ... which would mean: any string in some flavor of English or >>>>> >>>> French (but not, say, German or Japanese), and inclusive of tags >>>> such as "fr-CA" and "EN-us". >>>> >>>>> This may be difficult, since I don't think other pattern strings >>>>> >>>> allow for internal structure. >>>> >>>>> I'd be happy, personally and on behalf of the I18N Core WG, to >>>>> >>>> spend time discussing this with your WG as appropriate. Please note >>>> that I'm also the editor of BCP 47 and that a new revision is >>>> coming up. It won't affect this discussion, but it is a good reason >>>> why one should reference the BCP number and not the RFC :-) >>>> >>>>> Best Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Addison >>>>> >>>>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n- >>>>> >>>> core/2008AprJun/0065.html >>>> >>>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/04-core-minutes.html#item07 >>>>> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl- >>>>> >>>> wg/2008May/0019.html >>>> >>>>> Addison Phillips >>>>> Globalization Architect -- Lab126 >>>>> >>>>> Internationalization is not a feature. >>>>> It is an architecture. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> >> > -- Dr. Axel Polleres, Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI) email: axel.polleres@deri.org url: http://www.polleres.net/ Everything is possible: rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:Resource. rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subPropertyOf. rdf:type rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:subClassOf. rdfs:subClassOf rdf:type owl:SymmetricProperty.
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 21:47:20 UTC