W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Request for feedback on SKOS Last Call Working Draft

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:23:38 +0900
Message-ID: <4987AAAA.2000607@w3.org>
To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
CC: public-swd-wg@w3.org, "'Ralph R. Swick'" <swick@w3.org>, public-i18n-core@w3.org

Richard Ishida さんは書きました:
> I agree that using the word 'language' to describe every different language tag, including en-GB and en-US and en, doesn't sound right. 
>
> I have another question too.  In example 11 we see 
>
> <AnotherResource>
>   skos:prefLabel "東"@ja-Hani ;
>   skos:prefLabel "ひがし"@ja-Hira ;
>   skos:altLabel "あずま"@ja-Hira ;
>   skos:prefLabel "ヒガシ"@ja-Kana ;
>   skos:altLabel "アズマ"@ja-Kana ;
>   skos:prefLabel "higashi"@ja-Latn ;
>   skos:altLabel "azuma"@ja-Latn .
>
>
> Here there are four prefLabels associated with the same word in Japanese (just spelled in four different ways).  From a semantic point of view, I'm not sure that this makes sense, and I would have expected the kana and romaji versions to be altLabels. What is the value of having more than one prefLabel for a given language when the word being used is exactly the same? 

 From http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/#secpref
"RDF plain literals are formally defined as character strings with 
optional language tags [RDF-CONCEPTS]. SKOS thereby enables a simple 
form of multilingual labelling. "

>  I suppose I could see the use of contrasting "東"@ja with "higashi"@ja-Latn so that non-Japanese people could state a preference to see the transcribed form of the Japanese word (though from a semantic point of view, presumably skos:prefLabel "East"@en would be better?).  But maybe this is idiosynchratic to Japanese, since for Japanese people the hiragana and katakana transcriptions are usually just alternatives to the kanji version. 
>   

Correct, but a multilingual system may be used by non-Japanese persons, 
e.g. learning Japanese, who rely on "higashi"@ja-Latn. You could argue 
if multilingual fits to Japanese written with latin script versus 
Japanese script, but I think we don't have to argue ...

.

> On a slightly different tack, what's the advice wrt when one should use, eg., en-GB / en-US / en?

Are you asking about preferred, alternative or hidden lexical labels?

>  I would have thought that one should use en unless there are divergent spellings (eg. colour vs color) or locutions (eg. lift vs elevator), but example 19 shows 
>
> "color"@en , "color"@en-US , "colour"@en-GB .
>
> which seems to present two problems: 
>   

Maybe these sections
http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/#secpref
http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/#secalt
http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/#sechidden
explain the problems, and the difference between the three labels?

> [1] it requires a lot more annotation than strictly necessary, since applications using this data ought to be able to tell that "color"@en  is appropriate for en-US in the absence of a specific "color"@en-US label (three is already doubly redundant here, but there are more varieties of English than this, eg. en-AU,en-IR, etc....)
>
> [2] without this matching capability, you could end up with unnecessary gaps in the data (for example, what about a search originating from an en-AU context? 

Note that the role of labels can be very different. From
http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/#seclabel
"Each property implies a specific status for the label it introduces, 
ranging from a strong, univocal denotation relationship, to a string to 
aid in lookup. "
So matching is not necessarily an application for a label.


Felix

> As it stands, the implication seems to be that it wouldn't match this perfectly adequate literal).
>
> I would have expected that processing tools should recognise that a search originated from an en-GB context also matches en in the absence of alternatives with longer subtags.
>
> There is another small issue here related to the "colour"@en declaration.  Why is the American spelling used for en? What would happen if the English spelling were used in some places? Is there a stated policy that en = US English?
>
> Cheers,
> RI
>
> ============
> Richard Ishida
> Internationalization Lead
> W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)
>
> http://www.w3.org/International/
> http://rishida.net/
>
>
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
>> Sent: 24 January 2009 08:19
>> To: Ralph R. Swick
>> Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org; chairs@w3.org; ishida@w3.org; public-swd-
>> wg@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Request for feedback on SKOS Last Call Working Draft
>>
>> I looked at this briefly and have a personal, editorial comment.
>>
>> You write for example in sec. 5
>>
>> "The following graph is consistent, and illustrates the provision of
>> lexical labels in four different languages (Japanese Kanji, Japanese
>> Hiragana, Japanese Katakana and Japanese Rōmaji)."
>>
>> I would rather say
>>
>> "The following graph is consistent, and illustrates the provision of
>> lexical labels in four different variations (Japanese written with
>> Kanji, the Hiragana script, the Katakana script or with latin characters
>> (Rōmaji))."
>>
>> Since all examples are Japanese and differ only with regards to the
>> script in use.
>>
>> I think this concerns sec. 5.1 ("Japanese Hiragana"), 5.4, and 5.5.
>>
>> Regards, Felix
>>
>> Ralph R. Swick さんは書きました:
>>     
>>> Dear I18N Core Working Group (and other interested Chairs),
>>>
>>> The Semantic Web Deployment Working Group requests any feedback
>>> you may have on the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS)
>>> Vocabulary Reference specification [1].
>>>
>>>   [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-skos-reference-20080829/
>>>
>>> This document was published as a W3C Last Call Working Draft
>>> on 29 August 2008 [2]. The SemWeb Deployment Working Group
>>> requested CR transition on 7 January 2009 [3].
>>>
>>>   [2] http://www.w3.org/News/2008#item148
>>>   [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2009JanMar/0000.html
>>>
>>> It appears that due to an oversight there was not an explicit notice
>>> to chairs@w3.org of the Last Call publication.  Therefore we cannot
>>> be assured that you had the necessary notice should you have
>>> planned to do an I18N review of this document.
>>>
>>> The most likely subject matter for I18N consideration is the
>>> SKOS lexical labelling properties [4].
>>>
>>>   [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-skos-reference-20080829/#L2831
>>>
>>> On behalf of the Semantic Web Deployment Working Group,
>>> I request that you to consider whether you wish to offer any
>>> comments on the SKOS Reference Last Call Working Draft
>>> and to let us know an approximate schedule should you wish
>>> to send comments.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Ralph Swick
>>> SemWeb Deployment WG Team Contact
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>
>
>
>   
Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2009 02:24:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 February 2009 02:24:33 GMT