- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 22:18:31 +0000
- To: Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>
- Cc: "'Fadi Maali'" <fadi.maali@deri.org>, "'Public GLD WG'" <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
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