W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2003

French re-translation of RDF Schema and M+S label/comment text

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 09:34:04 -0400
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Cc: mf@w3.org, swick@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030808133404.GE6112@w3.org>

With big thanks to Max Froumentin and other French W3C team members, 
we now have a fresh translation of the rdfs:label and rdfs:comment 
text for all RDF Core terms, ie. both schemas. Since MaxF is in Bristol 
it seemed a good chance to get this updated, so we've just had the odd 
experience of translating the likes of "the subject of the subject RDF statement."

There were a fair few places where Max said it sounds a bit odd, but I 
believe those are mostly RDF's oddities rather than the translation. I
think it is pretty faithful and literal, rather than attempting any
major rephrasings.

I've commited this into our shadow TR space,
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-schema-20030117/combined-ns-translation.rdf.fr

Deployment options: 
Ralph asked that we restore the French additions back into the document
at the namespace URI. We could do this, but I fear it will create
maintainance issues for us in the post-REC future. With the RDFS
namespace doc, we always had an rdfs:seeAlso hypertext pointer to a
'more info' RDF file, I propose that we use that file, either directly
or as a multi-lingual table of contents for this and other translations.
A similar seeAlso pointer could be added to the M+S namespace. I propose
they point to a single common 'French translation' document for now,
rather than partitioning it into 2. I believe this will help establish 
the importance of hypertext linking in RDF documents (the 'Web' in
'Semantic Web') as well as provide a simple model for other translators
to copy. I'm willing to be persuaded of other designs though; there
doesn't seem to me to be an obviously 'right way' to deploy this. Ralph,
do you have a strong preference for embedding the French translation
rather than referencing it?

There are also issues / opportunities w.r.t. use of language negotiation 
of such schemas, but that is too complicated and confusing for me to
have any clear thoughts on right now. Suggestions welcomed...

cheers,

Dan
Received on Friday, 8 August 2003 09:34:04 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:59:35 EDT