W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > June 2003

Re: update on I18N review of RDF, OWL

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:39:09 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Cc: w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org

Hello Dan,

Many thanks for contacting me on this.
Please see below for my take on your assumptions.
I have copied the I18N IG list, used for technical

At 13:47 03/06/11 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
>Further to my action to get confirmation from I18N WG
>that our last call spec is I18N-happy...
>I talked with Martin in Budapest a couple weeks ago.
>Since then, he collected his thoughts on RDF literals
>and such...
>Summary of strings, markup, and language tagging in RDF (resend) Martin
>Duerst (Thu, Jun 05 2003)
>and the RDF Core WG is working thru them.

Yes, this is very important for I18N. It's not only my
thoughts, it has been confirmed by the WG.

>I'm still reasonably confident that OWL doesn't introduce
>any I18N issues; that if RDF Core satisfies the I18N WG
>(without making changes that we don't like) then I18N WG
>will be happy with OWL too.

I very much hope that the RDF Core WG will do this, but
there are some dependencies. See for example Graham Klyne's
mail at
where he mentions that RDF may treat xsd:string and plain
literals differently, but something on top of it may treat
them as being the same. That 'something' may well be OWL.

This ties in with the idea I mentioned in Budapest to have
some support in OWL for comparing strings/literals both
including and excluding language information. I'm not
completely sure OWL is the right place to do that, but
how would I otherwise express things such as "this is
a functional property if you don't care about the language
of the literal". If the webont WG has thought this through,
can you point me to the discussion? If not, we should make
sure we have had this discussion so that we don't regret
a missed opportunity later.

Also, you mentioned that you wanted to check with us whether
we would be okay with the requirements (or, in some case,
non-requirements) that OWL had on supporting XML literals
and XSD datatypes. Can you tell me where in which spec
I can find the details?

Regards,     Martin.

>Martin, if you could confirm, tentatively, that would help.
>Or should we expect specific review comments on the OWL
>specs from the I18N WG?
>Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 16 June 2003 18:39:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:46 UTC