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

Re: [SKOS] Re: ISSUE-224 [was: Agenda - 2009-07-07 SWD telecon]

From: Alistair Miles <alimanfoo@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:23:19 +0100
To: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Cc: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>, Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20090710112319.GA21269@skiathos>
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 01:35:37PM -0400, Thomas Baker wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> We discussed the I18N Core comment (below) on today's telecon
> [1] and resolved the following:
> 
>    RESOLUTION: We (a) modify the example(s) in 6.5.4 to be
>    syntactically conformant to BCP 47 and (b) offer to add a phrase
>    such as "note that such use of private subtags to transmit data
>    unrelated to language or language choice may violate BCP 47"
>    contingent on Alistair and Sean's agreeing

I'm happy with this.

> We also discussed Issue 25 [2] - whether the abstract should say
> "documented with various types of note" (as now) or "documented
> with various types of notes".  I think we actually discussed
> this at one point, and I vaguely recall agreeing with Sean that
> "types of note" is okay but would not object if Sean prefers to
> make the change.  Hence our resolution:
> 
>    RESOLUTION: Sean to decide on issue-225

Fine.

Thanks,

Alistair

> 
> Tom
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/07/07-swd-minutes.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/225
> 
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:59:16AM -0400, Ralph Swick wrote:
> > >>  2009-06-29. Addison Phillips on I18N issue
> > >>>  -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Jun/0040.html
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Re. this issue, I can live with the option where we would recommend  
> > >>to use pref and altLabels with literals that have no language tag.  
> > >>Even though this is clearly less flexible (e.g. not being compatible  
> > >>with the country code example).
> > >
> > >As I understand the comment, the problem is specifically with example  
> > >22 rather than the use of language tags with pref and altLabel,
> > 
> > That is the way I read the I18N Core WG comment as well.
> > It should not be too difficult (nor require restarting Proposed Rec
> > review) to alter the example, right?
> > 
> > >>I also volunteer to start a discussion with the i18n people on  
> > >>whether the use of private use tags is merely frowned upon, or if  
> > >>they would still formally object if our examples were just made  
> > >>compatible with the syntax for private use tags.
> > >
> > >That would be great -- thanks Antoine.
> > 
> > I'm nervous about asking for approval :)
> > 
> > They are very careful about their prose.  They specifically wrote
> > "frowned upon" and not some stronger language and that's
> > our loophole.  I believe this could be related to discussion we
> > had at our May 2008 face-to-face [1] as well.
> > 
> > I would recommend instead that we offer to (a) modify the
> > example(s) to be syntactically conformant and (b) offer to add
> > a phrase such as "note that such use of private subtags to
> > transmit data unrelated to language or language choice may
> > violate BCP 47".
> > 
> > >>I indeed understand that syntactially wrong tags are to be avoided  
> > >>in the rec. But if we make explicit that we're really not expecting  
> > >>the use of private tags to be common, then maybe the i18n would be  
> > >>happier on this specific point (which is different from the  
> > >>syntactic validity, again).
> > 
> > I don't think we're going to get them to admit that they're "happier"
> > with us documenting a practice upon which they "frown" :)
> > 
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html
> 
> -- 
> Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
> 

-- 
Alistair Miles
The Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics
Roosevelt Drive
Oxford
OX3 7BN
United Kingdom
Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
Email: alimanfoo@gmail.com **note change of email address**
Received on Tuesday, 14 July 2009 20:17:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 14 July 2009 20:17:09 GMT