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

Hello,

I'm sending this e-mail to public-rdf-text@w3.org only because I feel that
further discussion might be needed to resolve your comments appropriately. Once
when we reach an agreement, we shall send you an official response through
public-owl-comments@we.org.



I'm really sorry about the missing link. The following URL summarizes the
differences most of which have been made in response to your comment:

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=InternationalizedStringSpec&diff
=23289&oldid=22506




If I correctly understood your response, you have only one outstanding issue,
which is summarized below.

[snip]

> >
> > Point (5): Internationalization issues
> >
> > We agree that these might be important issues; however, they clearly
> > exceed the
> > scope of rdf:text. The main goal of this specification was to
> > provide adequate
> > names for the sets of plain literals in RDF, and not to solve all
> > internationalization problems one might have.
> 
> I regret to say that I do not think this is a satisfactory response to
> the issue I raised.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that while rdf:text appears to be aimed
> at supporting the representation of natural-language utterances,
> it is able to do so only for some writing systems, and has
> at best very poor support for others.  That is, it has serious
> internationalization issues and is not really adequate for the
> general task of representing natural-language utterances.
> 
> There are three things you could do, or try to do, about this fact.
> 
> (1) You could fix it.
> 
> This would apparently involve you in problems because it would create
> incompatibilities with existing RDF constructs. That is, the
> internationalization problems visible in rdf:text are also present
> in the existing constructs with which you need to be compatible.
> I understand that under these circumstances you may regard fixing
> the problem as an untenable approach.
> 

We fully believe this goal to be untenable. The rdf:text specification arose out
the need to provide a name for the plain literals in RDF, which we needed in RIF
and RDF. The goal of this specification was thus rather light-weight and we
would really prefer to keep it so.

> (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.
> 

We could point out (e.g., in the Introduction), that rdf:text is not meant to
serve as a panacea for the internationalization problems. We, however, simply
don't have enough knowledge in the area to discuss the pros, cons, and the
scope. It would be very useful for us if you could point us to the concrete
shortcomings; if you could do that, we would be happy to mention them in the
introduction.

> (3) You could pass over the problem in silence.
> 
> This has the unfortunate side effect that it makes it appear either
> that you are unaware of the problem (i.e. that the technology was
> designed by clueless people) or that you are aware of it but wish to
> sweep it under the rug.
> 
> I understand your response to indicate a preference for option
> (3); option (3) does not satisfy this reader, and I urge you
> to reconsider.  (And if you will not or cannot reconsider, then I
> ask that my formal objection be registered and that it be reported
> to the director when the working requests that the spec advance.)
> 
> I understand that approach (2) might be thought by some to risk
> damaging your reputation, or might damage your self-esteem, but
> I think the correct thing to do about known problems and shortcomings
> in a technology is to document them.
> 
> You can resolve my objection on this point by adding a note to
> the spec (1) pointing out that rdf:text is not suitable for, and not
> intended for, the representation of natural-language text or
> utterances, or (less strongly) that rdf:text cannot be used for
> the adequate representation of natural-language text in writing
> systems which require bidi markup or ruby markup, (2) explaining
> what mechanisms should be used instead, when the text to be
> represented requires markup, and optionally (3) explaining that
> this state of affairs is forced upon you by the requirement of
> compatibility with the existing plain literals of RDF.  The note
> does not need to be long, or elaborate.  It just needs to point
> out the problem and suggest ways of dealing with it.

As I mentioned above, we can try to address your comment by (1) and possibly
mentioning (3). I don't think we would like to talk about "this solution being
forced on us": we are not in the position where we can afford to be critical of
RDF or any other technology from the point of internationalization requirements;
this clearly exceeds our knowledge and scope. We are quite skeptical of (2): we
do not posses the sufficient knowledge to make a useful comment there.

Please let me know whether such changes would address your objections. Also, I
would really appreciate it if you could point out the issues that rdf:text does
not address in a suitable manner.

[snip]

Regards,

	Boris

Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2009 16:35:26 UTC