Thanks again for the comments. I agree that language metadata is important and that the set of use cases does not specifically include any metadata about the body or target resources. That was somewhat intentional, so as to avoid trying to list out all of the possible descriptive features for resources, such as creator, creation time, language, file format, license or other rights statements, intended audience and so forth. These are listed for the annotation itself, as the primary resource of interest. In the Web Annotation data model, the language is explicitly included along with format and general class of the resource [1]. In the upcoming WD (next week [2]), we also add creator and creation time. For language we refer to RFC 5646 as the value of the language property. Is that sufficient to cover the requirements? Many thanks, Rob [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#body-and-target-metadata [2] http://azaroth42.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd/index-renamed.html On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Phillips, Addison <addison@lab126.com> wrote: > [1] 2.1.3 general observation about language identification > Description: > http://www.w3.org/TR/dpub-annotation-uc/ > > 2.1.3 general observation about language identification > > Tags and annotations generally use natural language tokens (such as > words). While Unicode allows text to be stored, passed, and processed > without regard for the specific language, it is the case that strings can > benefit from language metadata for character shaping, spell-checking, font > selection and more. In additional, directionality information is usually > desired. > -- Rob Sanderson Information Standards Advocate Digital Library Systems and Services Stanford, CA 94305
Received on Sunday, 11 October 2015 09:24:09 UTC