Re: Phone bridge setup (was Re: I18N issues an OWL2)

Let me attempt to summarize what "is left" from last time and where we 
seemed (from my point of view) to agree... this should give us kind of 
an agenda for today.


Summarizing starting points for today:

1) We seemed to agree last time on the following:

*) One datatype rdf:text

*) value space for rdf:text:

pairs such that the first argument of the pair is a Unicode string
and the second one is a valid language tag following

*) lexical space (notation in presentation syntax):


rather than

   (string, tag)^^rdf:text

with shortcut notation:


2) We seemed to agree last time that subtag matching according to 
RFC4647 can be done by built-ins in RIF and datatype facets in OWL:

- for RIF this means a builtin:

    pred:matches-langtag( arg1 , arg2  )

intended domains:
- arg1 rdf:text
- arg2 valid language range according to

- for OWL this means:

   ??? Jie to elaborate on datatype-facets in OWL.

3) Issue 1: What about "subtypes" which cannot be determined by 
sub-pattern matching?

"art-lojban" and "jbo"
"zh-cmn" or "cmn" or  "zh"


4) Issue 2: xs:string

  did we agree on here xs:string is located here, i.e. whether it should 
be the subtype od rdf:text with an empty lang-tag?

Note that would mean that

  "blabla"^^xs:string is syntactic sugar for  "blabla@"^^rdf:text,

What about  "blabla" (aka plain literal in RDF)? is this also a shortcut for

5) Issue 3: Whether to supersede RFC 3066 (the one used by RDF and 
currently by RIF) with RFC 4646 (Tags for Identifying Languages) ...
I kind of imagine tat I sensed last time agreement towards the newer 
spec RFC4646, would that cause trouble wrt 3066 upwards-compatibility? 
Kind of similar to the "plain literals" issue 2 above.

Received on Monday, 11 August 2008 17:00:02 UTC