W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > October 2006

Re: Controlled Vocabularies Aid Translation and Content Management

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 11:38:31 -0400
Message-ID: <4523D577.8080503@acm.org>
To: Hans Teijgeler <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
CC: 'Adrian Walker' <adriandwalker@gmail.com>, semantic-web@w3.org, 'Karl Dubost' <karl@w3.org>, qa-chairs@w3.org

Hans Teijgeler wrote:
> Adrian,
> 
>> So, how is this relevant to w3c?
>  
> It is very relevant to W3C, because their Recommendations are, at times,
> hard to understand for someone whose native language isn't UK-English or
> US-English. Add to that the handicap of not belonging to the happy incrowd
> of W3C, so not being conversant with much of the W3C-specific slang and the
> abundantly used acronyms.

Hans--

I think you're making the situation simpler than it really is.  Surely 
by this time you realize that it isn't only people whose native language 
isn't English who find W3C Recommendations "at times, hard to 
understand"?  And as for "the happy incrowd of W3C", there certainly 
seems to be more than one such crowd, and they often don't appear very 
happy with each other :-)

> 
> An all-inclusive and normative W3C glossary of terms and acronyms with a
> crystal clear definitions (in understandable English) would help, provided
> that all authors would normatively refer to that glossary. A simple case of
> QA (meaning Quality Assurance - 'The process assuring the quality of one
> organization's outcomes.' (according [1])).

"An all-inclusive and normative W3C glossary of terms and acronyms with 
a crystal clear definitions (in understandable English)" would not only 
help, it would be a miracle!  (A great example of how simple this task 
would be is to consider the definition of "resource").  I think we might 
want to start with something much simpler, like an OWL ontology (nothing 
like eating your own dogfood!).

I'd also note that it generally isn't "the-great-W3C-in-the-sky" that 
gets things done, it's *volunteers* who get things done, W3C itself not 
having an arbitrarily-large workforce.  Things like making W3C 
Recommendations more understandable to non-native-English-speakers (or 
even translating them into other languages) are examples.  That things 
don't get done doesn't necessarily mean the W3C doesn't see them as 
desirable.

--Frank

>  
> Regards,
> Hans
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/QA/glossary
Received on Wednesday, 4 October 2006 15:29:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:41:53 UTC