Fwd: [LC response] To C. M. Sperberg-McQueen

Regarding his point 2, my inclination is to give him a call and see whether
I can get further information. I don't agree with his assessment.  The issue
he points out seem to issues around annotation and presentation. The former
can and should be represented in OWL using annotations as I specified in my
earlier note. The latter, presentation, seems out of scope, particularly as
it is my understanding that the issue is not that there is no way to
correctly present the bidi texts, but rather that an alternative way is
desired in certain circumstances. There are many issues that fall in the
scope of presentation in order to have correct communication of utterances
that are traditionally out of scope for string representations, for example
poetry that make use of font size as an integral aspect. We do not expect
strings to have font information embedded. That is a job for html.
-Alan

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: C.M.Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
Date: Wed, May 6, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: [LC response] To C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
To: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>,
public-owl-comments@w3.org, public-rdf-text@w3.org


(2) You could admit the problem, point it out to the reader, and explain
(as far as you know how) how best to work around it.

This would involve you in admitting that rdf:text is not really suitable,
in the general case, for representation of natural-language utterances
in arbitrary languages and writing systems, and that the existing
constructs with which it is intended to be compatible share those
shortcomings.  It would also involve you in recommending workarounds
for those shortcomings, or in advertising that the technology of RDF
is not, as currently constituted, really well suited for bidi
writing systems or for writing systems which use ruby characters.