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 ...




*Bernard Vatant
*Knowledge Engineering
*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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:55 UTC