- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 10:38:03 +0000
- To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
I already added this to "the matrix" (see [1]) as comment number 4. Ian [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Responses_to_Last_Call_Comments Begin forwarded message: > Resent-From: public-owl-comments@w3.org > From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> > Date: 7 January 2009 18:38:49 GMT > To: public-owl-comments@w3.org > Subject: Martin Duerst: Re: please review "text/owl-functional" > and "application/owl+xml" > > > I'll coordinate the reply, bridging the IETF review process with W3C > review process. > > > From: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> > Date: 6 January 2009 04:10:01 GMT > To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, ietf-types@iana.org, ietf-xml- > mime@imc.org > Cc: www-archive@w3.org > Subject: Re: please review "text/owl-functional" and "application/ > owl+xml" > > > Hello Sandro, > > Any reason why your Unicode reference is the outdated 3.0 > (currently 5.0)? > > Regards, Martin. > > At 09:03 09/01/06, Sandro Hawke wrote: >> >> The following two media type registrations are currently >> published, each >> as part a of W3C Last Call Working Draft ([1] [2]), and will soon be >> submitted to the IESG for review, approval, and registration with >> IANA >> (as per [3]). >> >> At this point, we would appreciate comments on this registration >> information. If you see any problems, please let us know; I'll >> act as a >> liason between these IETF lists and the W3C Working Group responsible >> for these specifications. >> >> -- Sandro >> >> [1] >> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/#Appendix:_Internet_Media_Type. >> 2C_File_Extension.2C_and_Macintosh_File_Type >> [2] >> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-xml-serialization/ >> #Appendix:_Internet_Media_Type.2C_File_Extension. >> 2C_and_Macintosh_File_Type >> [3] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype >> >> ================================================================ >> >> Type name >> >> text >> >> Subtype name >> >> owl-functional >> >> Required parameters >> >> None >> >> Optional parameters >> >> charset >> >> This parameter may be required when transfering non-ASCII >> data across some protocols. If present, the value of >> charset >> should be UTF-8. >> >> Encoding considerations >> >> The syntax of the OWL functional-style Syntax is expressed over >> code >> points in Unicode [UNICODE]. The encoding should be UTF-8 >> [RFC3629], >> but other encodings are allowed. >> >> [[ UNICODE: The Unicode Standard Version 3.0, Addison Wesley, >> Reading >> MA, 2000, ISBN: 0-201-61633-5, >> http://www.unicode.org/unicode/standard/standard.html ]] >> >> Security considerations >> >> The OWL functional-style Syntax uses IRIs as term >> identifiers. Applications interpreting data expressed in the OWL >> functional-style Syntax should address the security issues of >> Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs) [RFC3987] Section 8, >> as well as Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax >> [RFC3986] Section 7. Multiple IRIs may have the same >> appearance. Characters in different scripts may look similar (a >> Cyrillic "o" may appear similar to a Latin "o"). A character >> followed by combining characters may have the same visual >> representation as another character (LATIN SMALL LETTER E followed >> by COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT has the same visual representation as >> LATIN SMALL LETTER E WITH ACUTE). Any person or application >> that is >> writing or interpreting data in the OWL functional-style Syntax >> must >> take care to use the IRI that matches the intended semantics, and >> avoid IRIs that may look similar. Further information about >> matching >> of similar characters can be found in Unicode Security >> Considerations [UNISEC] and Internationalized Resource Identifiers >> (IRIs) [RFC3987] Section 8. >> >> [[ UNISEC: Unicode Security Considerations, Mark Davis and Michel >> Suignard, July 2008, http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr36/ ]] >> >> Interoperability considerations >> >> There are no known interoperability issues. >> >> Published specification >> >> This specification. >> >> [[ http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/ ]] >> >> Applications which use this media type >> >> No widely deployed applications are known to currently use this >> media type. It is expected that OWL tools will use this media type >> in the future. >> >> Additional information >> >> None. >> >> Magic number(s) >> >> OWL functional-style Syntax documents may have the strings >> 'Namespace:' or 'Ontology:' (case dependent) near the beginning of >> the document. >> >> File extension(s) >> >> ".ofn" >> >> Base IRI >> >> There are no constructs in the OWL functional-style Syntax to >> change >> the Base IRI. >> >> Macintosh file type code(s) >> >> "TEXT" >> >> Person & email address to contact for further information >> >> Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> >> >> Intended usage >> >> COMMON >> >> Restrictions on usage >> >> None >> >> Author/Change controller >> >> The OWL functional-style Syntax is the product of the W3C OWL >> Working Group; W3C reserves change control over this >> specification. >> >> ================================================================ >> >> Type name >> >> application >> >> Subtype name >> >> owl+xml >> >> Required parameters >> >> None >> >> Optional parameters >> >> charset >> >> This parameter may be required when transfering non-ascii >> data across some protocols. >> >> Encoding considerations >> >> The syntax of the OWL XML Serialization is expressed over code >> points in Unicode [UNICODE]. >> >> [[ UNICODE: The Unicode Standard Version 3.0, Addison Wesley, >> Reading >> MA, 2000, ISBN: 0-201-61633-5, >> http://www.unicode.org/unicode/standard/standard.html ]] >> >> Security considerations >> >> The OWL XML Serialization uses IRIs as term >> identifiers. Applications interpreting data expressed in the >> OWL XML >> Serialization should address the security issues of >> Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs) [RFC3987] Section 8, >> as well as Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax >> [RFC3986] Section 7. Multiple IRIs may have the same >> appearance. Characters in different scripts may look similar (a >> Cyrillic "o" may appear similar to a Latin "o"). A character >> followed by combining characters may have the same visual >> representation as another character (LATIN SMALL LETTER E followed >> by COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT has the same visual representation as >> LATIN SMALL LETTER E WITH ACUTE). Any person or application >> that is >> writing or interpreting data in the OWL XML Serialization must >> take >> care to use the IRI that matches the intended semantics, and avoid >> IRIs that may look similar. Further information about matching of >> similar characters can be found in Unicode Security Considerations >> [UNISEC] and Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs) >> [RFC3987] >> Section 8. >> >> [[ UNISEC: Unicode Security Considerations, Mark Davis and Michel >> Suignard, July 2008, http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr36/ ]] >> >> Interoperability considerations >> >> There are no known interoperability issues. >> >> Published specification >> >> This specification. >> >> [[ http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-xml-serialization/ ]] >> >> Applications which use this media type >> >> None at current time. >> >> Additional information >> >> None. >> >> Magic number(s) >> >> OWL XML documents are XML documents and thus may have initial >> strings similar to any XML document. >> >> File extension(s) >> >> ".owx" >> >> Base URI >> >> As in XML. >> >> Macintosh file type code(s) >> >> "TEXT" >> >> Person & email address to contact for further information >> >> Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> >> >> Intended usage >> >> COMMON >> >> Restrictions on usage >> >> None >> >> Author/Change controller >> >> The OWL XML Serialization is the product of the W3C OWL Working >> Group; W3C reserves change control over this specification. > > > #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University > #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp > mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp > >
Received on Thursday, 8 January 2009 10:38:48 UTC