Re: I18N issues an OWL2

Axel Polleres さんは書きました:
> 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.

Great. I think from the i18n side at least Addison is critical. If the 
OWL 2 folks will identify who is critical from their side we can start 
scheduling a meeting.


> Axel
>>> Best
>>> Jie
>>> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Phillips, Addison 
>>> <> 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: [] On Behalf Of Jie
>>>>> Bao
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 11:33 AM
>>>>> To: Phillips, Addison
>>>>> Cc:;; public-
>>>>> 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]
>>>>> [2]
>>>>> Best
>>>>> Jie
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Phillips, Addison
>>>>> <> 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]
>>>>> core/2008AprJun/0065.html
>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>> [3]
>>>>> wg/2008May/0019.html
>>>>>> Addison Phillips
>>>>>> Globalization Architect -- Lab126
>>>>>> Internationalization is not a feature.
>>>>>> It is an architecture.

Received on Thursday, 10 July 2008 02:02:00 UTC