W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-gld-wg@w3.org > January 2013

Re: [dcat] issue 26 - range of dcterms:language - proposal

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 22:18:31 +0000
Cc: "'Fadi Maali'" <fadi.maali@deri.org>, "'Public GLD WG'" <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2E213914-A0C0-41ED-98E8-F54A258BB47A@cyganiak.de>
To: Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>
On 31 Jan 2013, at 20:54, Makx Dekkers wrote:
> - Maybe it can be noted in the resolution text that Library of Congress
> is the Registration Authority for ISO639-2, to pre-empt any questions
> about the authoritativeness of the URIs

Should certainly be mentioned in the spec text.

> - Alternative suggestion for the sentence "The iso639-1 codes should be
> preferred, and iso639-2 codes used only when no iso639-1 code is
> available for a language":
> 
> "If a ISO639-1 URI is defined for a language, that URI must be used; if
> no ISO639-1 URI is defined, the ISO639-2 URI must be used." (referring
> to URIs not codes)

Yes, this phrasing is much clearer.

I believe that strictly speaking, ISO 639 defines only codes, not URIs. How about this:

"If a ISO 639-1 (two-letter) code is defined for language, then its corresponding URI MUST be used; if no ISO 639-1 code is defined, then URI corresponding to the ISO 639-2 (three-letter) code MUST be used."

Also, s/URI/IRI/ , and we'll have to see about MUST vs SHOULD in the context of the entire spec fragment -- using non-LoC URIs should still be allowed.

Best,
Richard


> 
> 
> Makx.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Fadi Maali [mailto:fadi.maali@deri.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:28 PM
>> To: Public GLD WG
>> Subject: [dcat] issue 26 - range of dcterms:language - proposal
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Based on the discussion related to issue 26:
>> https://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/26
>> The current proposal is to recommend using URIs defined by the Library
>> of Congress in DCAT specification
>> 
>> copied from Richard's email before
>> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2012Oct/0151.html )
>> [[
>> PROPOSAL: In DCAT-conformant data, values of dcterms:language MUST be
>> members of some subclass, and SHOULD be ISO-639 URIs as defined by the
>> Library of Congress in
>> http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/iso639-1.html and
>> http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/iso639-2.html
>> . The iso639-1 codes should be preferred, and iso639-2 codes used
>> only when no iso639-1 code is available for a language. This resolves
>> ISSUE-26
>> ]]
>> 
>> please provide any feedback or opinion you might have.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Fadi
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2013 22:19:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 25 June 2013 15:04:58 UTC