- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:51:02 +0900
- To: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
- Cc: Sue Ellen Wright <sellenwright@gmail.com>, Gerhard Budin <gerhard.budin@univie.ac.at>, Addison Phillips <addison@yahoo-inc.com>, Mark Davis <mark.davis@jtcsv.com>, Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
Hi all, I'm trying to understand what you want to achieve: Is it URIs for language values, e.g. http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/language#en-US ? I don't think that it is feasible to have everything after "#" as an URI, since RFC 4646 or its successor define a grammar for language tags. That is, you cannot have a finite set of URIs built out of that. Have you thought of registering an XPointer scheme at W3C? E.g. something like "language()" which can be used e.g. in http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/language#(en-US) . You would have to define that the scheme data "()" contains an BCP 47 identifier. Felix Bernard Vatant wrote: > Sue Ellen > > Thanks for all this. I will munch over it and try to come up with > something by the first week of January, when everybody is out of the > bubbles ... :-) > > Bernard > > Sue Ellen Wright a écrit : >> Hi, All, >> Indeed, I suspect that lots of people would be delighted if someone >> wants to go ahead with this for SKOS, provided that no one has already >> started such a project. Rather than searching for IANA, you want to >> reference IETF BCP 47, which will be your permanent ID reference for >> the Language Tags. My contacts on BCP 47 are Felix Sasaki, Addison >> Phillips, and Mark Davis, but as noted, they may possibly be off line >> right now, as many people are. On the ISO side, Gerhard Budin is the >> Chair of ISO TC 37/SC 2, whose WG 2 is responsible for the 639 family >> of standards. I know that he shares my view that any new initiatives >> in this area should be oriented toward the set of codes and the syntax >> rules contained in the current IETF RFC 4645, 4646 and 4647, taking >> into consideration any successor recommendations of the IETF. (There >> is, for instance, a current effort to update the recently approved >> RFCs to bring documents into compliance with the new ISO 639-3, which >> essentially identifies the SIL Ethnologue codes as the extended codes >> for comprehensive identification of languages. Also bear in mind (I >> probably said this in another email) that when it comes to xml:lang, >> we need to concern ourselves with langauge tags per IETF, not just >> language codes alone. >> >> Sorry I'm not coming up with the absolute final answer here, but >> sooner or later, one of the IETF guys will check his mail! >> Best regards >> Sue Ellen >> >> >> On 12/21/06, *Bernard Vatant* <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com >> <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>> wrote: >> >> Sue Ellen >> > I think you are absolutely right about this not being a significant >> > task: the main issue is to get a variety of people from a number of >> > communities of practice to agree on a single approach. >> Sure enough. But at least we could help proposing at least one. :-) >> > SKOS would certainly be one avenue. There may be others, and in the >> > end, we may need more than one flavor in order to conform to >> > requirements in a given environment, which is OK as long as we >> can map >> > successfully back and forth. >> Yes, this is a good use case for mapping, either SKOS-to-SKOS >> mapping, >> or mapping from some RDF dialect to another. You know it's one of my >> favourite topics. >> > I'm hoping that sooner or later one of the guys for W3C will weigh >> > into this discussion and let us know whether they are already >> > addressing this issue. >> I've been searching the W3C I18n Activity >> http://www.w3.org/International/ which looks to me the place where >> such >> things should happen, but it looks like at first sight there is no >> connection between this activity and the SW activity. I will >> investigate >> further. >> > It's a bad time of year to hope to catch everybody monitoring their >> > email! >> Indeed. By the way, Happy Xmas to all :-) >> >> Bernard >> > There will be an ISO TC 37 meeting in January where we'll be >> > addressing issues regarding our own metadata registry, and this >> will >> > surely come up. >> > Best regards >> > Sue Ellen >> > >> > On 12/21/06, *Bernard Vatant* < bernard.vatant@mondeca.com >> <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> >> > <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com >> <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>>> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Sue Ellen >> > >> > Thanks for your insights. Do you have pointers to the >> discussions you >> > mention, and/or any contact with people taking part in them, >> and who >> > would see some interest in RDF-ization of those resources? >> (assuming >> > such a class definition is satisfiable). >> > Actually when one looks at >> > http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry >> > < http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry>, >> the >> > technical >> > task of migrating its content into RDF, as long as a relevant >> > vocabulary >> > is defined, is quite trivial. >> > After that it's mainly a political issue. :-) >> > But there is a point that has not been answered so far in my >> original >> > question. Would SKOS a relevant format for such a >> representation? >> > >> > Bernard >> > >> > >> > Sue Ellen Wright a écrit : >> > > Hi, All, >> > > There's serious discussions going on concerning the IETF >> > language tag >> > > subtag registry and the ISO implementations of the 639 >> family of >> > > codes, so I think it makes sense to coordinate any efforts >> in this >> > > direction with the folks working on those two sets of >> standards. >> > IETF >> > > 4647 spells out means for matching codes, but it would >> make things a >> > > lot simpler if we have a more or less standard format for >> > representing >> > > them in rdf. >> > > Bye for now >> > > Sue Ellen >> > > >> > > >> > > On 12/20/06, *Thomas Baker* <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de >> <mailto:baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de> >> > <mailto:baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de >> <mailto:baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de> > >> > > <mailto:baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de >> <mailto:baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de> >> > <mailto:baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de >> <mailto:baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 06:54:18PM +0100, Bernard >> Vatant wrote: >> > > > ISO-639 languages are used in XML and in RDF, and in >> SKOS, via >> > > their >> > > > code used as value of xml:lang attribute. >> > > > But for various applications, it would be >> interesting to >> > define >> > > those >> > > > languages as proper RDF resources. >> > > > >> > > > So far, the only attempt to do so I've found in RDF is >> > > > http://downlode.org/rdf/iso-639/ and the description it >> > provides is >> > > > quite basic. >> > > ... >> > > >> > > > So, we have public concepts, a lot of data to mine, we >> > have use >> > > cases, >> > > > all we need is a namespace to which append ISO 639 >> codes to >> > > forge URIs. >> > > > Who is likely to host and maintain that namespace? >> > > > http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/language# >> > > <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/language#> ? >> > > > http://purl.org/dc/language/ >> <http://purl.org/dc/language/> ? >> > > ... >> > > > Since I think we can wait for quite a while before ISO >> > delivers >> > > such a >> > > > thing in its own namespace - and I would be happy to >> be proven >> > > wrong >> > > > here - I wonder what kind of initiative could move >> this thing >> > > forward. >> > > > Is it in DCMI intention to define those instances in >> its own >> > > namespace >> > > > (Tom, any clues on that?). >> > > >> > > Well, I agree with the need :-) >> > > >> > > Several years ago, we considered opening a DCMI >> service for the >> > > "registration" of URIs identifying controlled >> vocabularies for >> > > use as encoding schemes in metadata. While the demand >> for such >> > > a service was clear, the project did not look >> maintainable, >> > > sustainable, and scalable. >> > > >> > > Unless URIs are coined "once and for all" and "with no >> > > guarantees" (and how useful is that?), it is not clear >> > > how such a namespace host should operate over time. The >> > > impulse to "just do it" comes up against hard questions. >> > > Even just maintaining URIs for entities in a separately >> > > maintained ISO standard would involve a significant >> commitment. >> > > >> > > Tom >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Tom Baker - tbaker@tbaker.de <mailto:tbaker@tbaker.de> >> <mailto:tbaker@tbaker.de <mailto:tbaker@tbaker.de>> >> > <mailto:tbaker@tbaker.de <mailto:tbaker@tbaker.de> >> <mailto:tbaker@tbaker.de <mailto:tbaker@tbaker.de>>> - >> > > baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de >> <mailto:baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de> >> > <mailto:baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de >> <mailto:baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>> <mailto: >> > baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de >> <mailto:baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de> >> <mailto:baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de >> <mailto:baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>>> >> > >> > >> > <mailto:sewright@neo.rr.com <mailto:sewright@neo.rr.com>> >> >> >> < http://mondeca.wordpress.com/> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Sue Ellen Wright >> Institute for Applied Linguistics >> Kent State University >> Kent OH 44242 USA >> sellenwright@gmail.com <mailto:sellenwright@gmail.com> >> swright@kent.edu <mailto:swright@kent.edu> >> sewright@neo.rr.com <mailto:sewright@neo.rr.com> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.26/594 - Release Date: >> 20/12/2006 15:54 >> >
Received on Friday, 22 December 2006 02:16:09 UTC