* Alistair Miles <email@example.com> [2006-02-03 14:45+0000]
Following one of Jeremy's suggestions at , I'd like to propose we
factor all English annotations out of the main RDF description of the
SKOS Core Vocabulary and into a separate resource, as is currently the
case for all annotations in other languages. Jeremy's reasons:
- yes english is the default language in W3C
<flamebait> And the world... </flamebait>
(Especially the technology world)
- but also yes the english labels should be accessible using the
same mechanisms as any other supported language. This will allow tools
to not have to special case for english.
I 100% agree that the English labels should be accessible by a
mechanism identical to the other language. But for the time being,
I suggest it would be counter productive to hide the English text
around rdfs:seeAlso links (sadly) when reading a vocabulary description.
I wish they did, ... but they way to achieve that imho is by patches
to opensource tools like Protege, rather than by removing triples and
hoping that folks notice and write the code to go find where the
triples are now hiding.
This change would mean removing all statements matching the triple
- (?x rdfs:label ?y)
- (?x rdfs:comment ?y)
- (?x skos:definition ?y)
... from the main RDF description of the SKOS Core Vocabulary, and into
a resource named:
+1 on adding the triples to core_en
-1 on removing them from the main description
This change would also mean adding the following triple to the main RDF
description of the SKOS Core Vocabulary:
+1 on the rdfs:seeAlso
Any objections to raising this proposal?
Yup sorry. If this new idiom / deployment style is going to get
traction, it would need to be adopted by a few major vocabs. I don't
think going it alone 1st with SKOS is of any great value, and will only
cause annoyance amongst puzzled users.
Here's another argument: the English version of the SKOS definitions
really *is* privileged, because it is the primary version agreed on by the
community, and the others are (perhaps lossily, fallibly) derrive from
it. Ideally this could be represented explicitly in RDF, and the
English language text be managed as you suggest. But for now, nobody
works that way.
A vocab created and documented primarily in Japanese might make a
similar choice, but privilege the Japanese translations. I don't mean to
suggest that the 'default' text should always be English, and I'm
always delighted to find schemas documented in other languages...
CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Building R1 Room 1.60
Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440