W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > February 2007

Re: [SKOS] languages and scripts

From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 13:03:15 +0100
Message-ID: <45CC6303.3020503@mondeca.com>
To: Jakob Voss <jakob.voss@gbv.de>
Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org

Hi Jakob

>> <skos:Concept rdf:about='#zh'>
>>  <skos:prefLabel>zh</skos:prefLabel>
>>  <skos:altLabel>Chinese</skos:altLabel>
>>  <lang:tagType rdf:resource="#PrimaryLanguage">
>>  <dc:date>2005-10-16</dc:date>
>> </skos:Concept>
>>
>> Typing without classes is certainly better in this case than subclassing
>> skos:Concept, because otherwise we will have a quite weird conceptScheme
>> with concepts in different classes, with common narrower concepts with
>> none of those. Very bizarre ...
>>     
>
> The "tagType" also looks weird to me. 
It is. Kind of hacking. I will not fight for it ...
> Alternative solutions:
>
> 1. Subclassing of skos:Concept (you can still use simple skos:Concept)
>   
That was the approach of my first proposal. As said before, but I will 
put it more explicitly, my concern is that it does not fit neatly with 
the multiple broader-narrower relation between e.g., "en" and "en-US", 
on one hand, and "US" and "en-US" on the other hand. We would have:

lang:en         rdf:type      lang:PrimaryLanguage
lang:US       rdf:type      lang:Region
lang:en-US   skos:broader      lang:en
lang:en-US   skos:broader      lang:US
lang:en-US   rdf:type      ???

Whatever the type of the latter, it's neither Refion nor 
PrimaryLanguage, and seems strange to have two broader concepts in two 
different classes. No?
> 2. No differences in classes (this is implied by 1. if you do inferencing)
>   
I'm not sure I understand this option, and how it is implied by 1.
> 3. Put regions and scripts in ConceptSchemes of their own
>   
I've thought about that option also, and really like it also, but have 
the same concern as the above with classes, having "en-US" with two 
broader concepts in two different ConceptSchemes ... and in which 
ConceptScheme itself? Semantics of ConceptScheme is still largely 
underspecified if specified at all, but I would say that 
broader-narrower should generally be internal to a ConceptScheme. Well, 
not sure about that, since OTOH a Concept can belong to several 
ConceptScheme(s). Alistair do you intend to include ConceptScheme in 
your SKOS semantics proposal? Could help here.
> I like 3. BCP 47 is based on ISO 15924 (scripts) and
> ISO 3166 + UN M.49 (regions) so both should be defined in Schemes of
> their own and linked to by BCP 47 anyway. By the way I'm working on a
> detailed paper with a proposal how to encode countries and regions in
> SKOS, based on ISO 3166. This is less easier than it looks like because
>  countries regularly change (seperate, join, rename... ;-)
>   
Good luck for that one. The problem with the real world is that it's 
usually time dependent ...

Cheers

Bernard

-- 

*Bernard Vatant
*Knowledge Engineering
----------------------------------------------------
*Mondeca**
*3, citÚ Nollez 75018 Paris France
Web:    www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com>
----------------------------------------------------
Tel:       +33 (0) 871 488 459
Mail:     bernard.vatant@mondeca.com <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Blog:    Lešons de Choses <http://mondeca.wordpress.com/>
Received on Friday, 9 February 2007 12:03:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:55 GMT