W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-lld@w3.org > September 2011

Re: Library data is expressed primarily as text strings

From: Peter Murray <peter.murray@lyrasis.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:30:58 -0400
To: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Message-ID: <84CA59D7-0F68-40B3-9B01-55676A11AE4A@lyrasis.org>
Perfect.  Thanks, Tom!


Peter

On Sep 6, 2011, at 2:17 PM, Tom Baker wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 07:30:11PM +0200, Svensson, Lars wrote:
>> Yes, I'd agree that "natural language" is a good choice here, and
>> understandable for someone who is not a native speaker of English.
> 
> Using "natural language text" would avoid the ambiguity around
> whether "text strings" are any different from other "alphanumeric
> strings" (as in Carlo's reading).
> 
> Would it be too strong to say:
> 
>    Library data is expressed primarily in natural-language text
> 
>    Most information in library data is encoded as display-oriented, 
>    natural-language text. ...
> 
> as in [1]??
> 
> Tom
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_issues_page_take2&diff=6247&oldid=6216
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: public-xg-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-lld-request@w3.org]
>>> Im Auftrag von Peter Murray
>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. September 2011 19:12
>>> An: public-xg-lld
>>> Betreff: Re: Library data is expressed primarily as text strings
>>> 
>>> I think "natural language" is a good choice of term.  I struggled a bit
>>> with a reply but kept getting tangled up in definitions.  "natural
>>> language" cuts through the confusion and tangle for me.  Others?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Peter
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sep 6, 2011, at 12:29 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>>> In other environments I have included the concept of "natural
>>>> language" to distinguish between these concepts. For most non-IT
>>>> people, "text" means "in a human language", and "text string" just
>>>> means a bit of human language. We refer to a book or article as being
>>>> "text." If I wish to refer to "strings" in the IT sense, I would say
>>>> "alphanumeric strings" or something of that nature.
>>>> 
>>>> When I look up definitions of text I don't see anything that would
>>>> equate the term "text" with a URI. Even the definition of "formatted
>>>> text" [1] doesn't equate it with non-language strings.
>>>> 
>>>> So maybe the problem here is with the use of "text strings" rather
>>>> than "text." Library data is primarily expressed as text -- that is,
>>>> as human language. The few uses of formatted data are either numeric
>>>> data (used mainly for cartographic materials) and codes (language
>>>> codes, codes for locations, etc.)
>>>> 
>>>> kc
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Quoting Carlo Meghini <carlo.meghini@isti.cnr.it>:
>>>> 
>>>>> Corrected version of my previous message, apologies.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Very interesting debate indeed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am not sure I have followed all the developments, but here it
>>>>> seems to me that the problem is NOT the "text string" per sé. A URI
>>>>> (in its abstract syntax) is in fact a text string, and so is an
>>>>> ISBN. The difference between a URI and any other type of string is
>>>>> that a URI has a meaning associated to it, and this meaning allows
>>>>> an agent (for instance a piece of software), who knows there is a
>>>>> URI in a certain place, to do something with the URI (whether
>>>>> display it nicely or dereference it and get back a representation).
>>>>> So, a text string is fine, as long as the string conforms to a
>>>>> syntax with an associated semantics.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Carlo
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sep 5, 2011, at 11:46 PM, Tom Baker wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 11:41:51PM +0200, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>>>>>>>>> OK, I've tried it in
>>>>>>>>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_issues_
>>> page_take2&diff=6212&oldid=6141
>>>>>>>>> (be careful, this diff includes quite some other changes,
>>>>>>>>> including a couple by Tom...)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> This pulls the two points together into one coherent point
>>>>>>>> quite efficiently.  Nicely done!
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> One minor stylistic suggestion:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> s/especially, changes/in particular, that changes/
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This reminds me too much of not elegant French constructions, I
>>>>>>> could not have thought of that :-)
>>>>>>> But if you think that's alright, feel free to implement it!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> DONE [1]...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>> 

-- 
Peter Murray         Peter.Murray@lyrasis.org        tel:+1-678-235-2955                 
Ass't Director, Technology Services Development   http://dltj.org/about/
LYRASIS   --    Great Libraries. Strong Communities. Innovative Answers.
The Disruptive Library Technology Jester                http://dltj.org/ 
Attrib-Noncomm-Share   http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
Received on Tuesday, 6 September 2011 18:31:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 6 September 2011 18:31:28 GMT