- From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 15:01:41 +0200
- To: rif WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <482056B5.90105@inf.unibz.it>
Sandro Hawke wrote:
> OWL has just re-invented rif:text. See:
>
> The unary datatype owl:internationalizedString represents pairs of
> strings and language tags, and thus represents plain RDF literals
> with a language tag. The lexical space of this datatype is a string
> of the form "text@languageTag"; thus, the text of each lexical value
> before last @ sign is the actual text, and the text after the last @
> sign is the language tag of the constant. Each such lexical value is
> interpreted as a pair <"text",languageTag>.
>
> - http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#Datatypes
>
> and
>
> The value space for owl:internationalizedString consists of all pairs
> <"text",languageTag>, where "text" is a string and languageTag is a
> language tag.
>
> - http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Semantics#Datatype_Maps
>
> They added a shortcut to their presentation syntax (which they called
> their "functional syntax") :
>
> EXAMPLE:
>
> "Padre de familia"@es is an abbreviation to an internationalized
> constant "Padre de familia@es"^^xsd:internationalizedString -- that
> is, a pair consisting of the string "Padre de familia" and the
> language tag es denoting the Spanish language. Note that the lexical
> values of xsd:internationalizedString constants are strings that
> contain the actual string value, the @ sign, and the language tag,
> without any spaces between them.
>
>
> - http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#Constants
>
> This is not particularly surprising -- in retrospect, RDF Core should
> have done this in RDF when they developed language tags. It is
> reassuring that both groups came up with the same design (as odd as it
> is, putting the language tag inside the string!).
>
> Moving forward, I think we (both groups, at least, maybe consulting with
> SWIG and the XML Schema) need to pick one name:
>
> - {rif,owl,rdf,xsd, ...?}:{text, internationalizedString, ...?}
>
> and decide which WG will get it through the process first. It might
> make sense to split this out into it's own Recommendation-Track
> document. It might just qualify as the shortest-ever Rec, but that
> seems fine.
makes sense.
>
> (Does anyone remember where we got on talking to XML Schema WG about
> this?)
the conclusion was that the XML schema working group was not interested
in this datatype, because in the XML world you would simply construct a
complex datatype for representing these things.
Best, Jos
>
> -- Sandro
>
--
Jos de Bruijn debruijn@inf.unibz.it
+390471016224 http://www.debruijn.net/
----------------------------------------------
An expert is a person who has made all the
mistakes that can be made in a very narrow
field.
- Niels Bohr
Received on Tuesday, 6 May 2008 13:02:25 UTC