- 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