Re: rif:text / owl:internationalizedString

> 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?

Why would this be messy?  It is clearly not part of the RDF vocabulary, 
since, as you mentioned, the RDF semantics document lists the vocabulary 
explicitly.

Best, Jos

> 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/
>>>>
>>>>
>>
> 

-- 
Jos de Bruijn            debruijn@inf.unibz.it
+390471016224         http://www.debruijn.net/
----------------------------------------------
Public speaking is the art of diluting a two-
minute idea with a two-hour vocabulary.
   - Evan Esar

Received on Thursday, 26 June 2008 10:33:54 UTC