Re: Workflows for localizing RDF (Fwd: Fwd: "Organization Ontology" Japanese translation available)

Dear all,

Sorry for my late reply. Here you are some comments:

>From Felix:
 > But I have a question: will we provide best practices in the form of
> "Do XYZ because ..."
> "Don't do XYZ because"
> The question is really about how the BP will be presented.

As Jose pointed out, instead of than saying "do/ do not do" we will try to
identify under which conditions a pattern is better than the others and
why. With regard to the particular way of representing the BPs, we have not
decided it yet, so any suggestion will be welcome!
As for me, I think we should identify a list of generic tasks (e.g.,
"multilingual linked data generation", "linked data localisation", etc.), a
decision tree for each of them with the subtasks to do, and the best
pattern to follow for each of the subtasks.

> would it be ok to have an unstructured list of best pratice statements in
the wiki?
> Just to be able to keep track of discussions like the workflow topic or
the one at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-translators/2014JanMar/0033.html
>That would not replace the existing structure.

Of course! Actually our current page
https://www.w3.org/community/bpmlod/wiki/Best_practises_-_previous_notes is
intended to collect "draft" ideas and record some discussions previous to
the definition of the BPs, so feel free to add these pointers there.


>From Dave:
> 3) can we advise on use of some form of isTranslationOf or
isTranslatedFrom
> (not necessarily the same?) RDF relationship to use in linked data?

Actually we are currently defining a translation module in lemon within the
ONTOLEX group. In that module we "reify" the translation relation and
associate relevant information to it (translation
source, translation target, context, confidence, ...). Maybe it helps.

> To take this further, should we start a specific section in the BP-MLOD
wiki on the internationalsiation
> and localsiaiton of ontologies, discussing the use of labels, the
workflow and extraction into and
> merging from XLIFF and use of ITS within that workflow? It would be
useful then to get input/feedback
> from those involved in authoring and translating the like of DCAT and the
organisation ontology.

Definitely YES! I was thinking on just jumping into that topic directly for
the next telco (instead of following the current sequence), but seeing the
list of topics we are really close, so maybe is better to touch
"dereferencing" for the next telco, as planned, and then we'll move into
everything related to textual information, lexicalisation, localisation and
all that stuff, which is the next set of topics (
https://www.w3.org/community/bpmlod/wiki/Topic_classification). What do you
think?

> Also, is now the time to start using the w3C issue tracker to help manage
the progress of different topics on the
> mailing list and in the meetings? That can help people in the community
to champion a particular topic and
> drive discussions to a resolution over time.

+1 That sounds good to me. Although I have no experience with the W3C issue
tracker. Anyone can help with this?


Best regards,

Jorge


-- 
Jorge Gracia, PhD
Ontology Engineering Group
Artificial Intelligence Department
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/~jgracia/