ISSUE-136

Last Call Comment: plain literal ranges and internationalisation

State:
POSTPONED
Product:
SKOS
Raised by:
Alistair Miles
Opened on:
2008-09-30
Description:
Raised by Michael Schneider in [1]:

"""
I'm not clear how to express S12 in OWL, should this be intended. One can use
rdfs:Literal as the range, which would also contain all typed literals. One can
use xsd:string, which has at least a value space equivalent to the set of plain
literals, but this would require to have labels of the form "Hello
World!"^^xsd:string.

Note: Currently, there is some ongoing work (by the OWL and the RIF working
groups) on specifying a new data type "rdf:text", which denotes the set of all
internationalized plain tags. But, AFAIU, this datatype will /not/ contain those
plain literals having /no/ language tag. Here is some text, which is currently
under development (so be careful, it's nothing official):
<http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec>.
"""

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0044.html
Related emails:
  1. ISSUE-136: Last Call Comment: plain literal ranges and internationalisation (from dean+cgi@w3.org on 2008-09-30)
  2. Re: Review of the 'SKOS Reference' Last Call Working Draft (from alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2008-09-30)
  3. ISSUE-136 draft response (from sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk on 2008-10-02)
  4. Re: ISSUE-136 draft response (from alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk on 2008-10-02)
  5. Real List of No Changes! (from sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk on 2008-10-14)
  6. Re: Review of the 'SKOS Reference' Last Call Working Draft [ISSUE-136] (from sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk on 2008-10-17)
  7. RE: Review of the 'SKOS Reference' Last Call Working Draft [ISSUE-138] (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-10-22)
  8. Re: Review of the 'SKOS Reference' Last Call Working Draft [ISSUE-138] (from sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk on 2008-11-06)

Related notes:

2008-11-06: ACTION: Accept

2008-11-06: CHANGE-TYPE: None

2008-11-06: RESOLUTION: As you point out, there are some constraints in the SKOS data model that we are unable to express in OWL (some of these /may/ be addressed by OWL 2, but in the current SKOS specification we are avoiding reference to work in progress). In such cases, the constraints are expressed in prose in the document. Thus the lack of an OWL version of S12 is rather through /necessity/ than intention. Statements to this effect are made in Section 1.7.1 of the LC draft. Do you feel these are sufficient, or do we need to further elaborate this point? As you point out, in this case it would be possible to approximate the constraint -- this is a choice we have not made here.

2008-11-06: COMMENTER-RESPONSE: Accept