Re: rif:text / owl:internationalizedString

Thank Jie a lot.

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? 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/
>>>
>>>
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf