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

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

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 10:48:45 -0400
To: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, mf@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030808144845.GG6112@w3.org>

* Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org> [2003-08-08 10:01-0400]
> At 09:34 AM 8/8/2003 -0400, Dan Brickley wrote:
> >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.
> Thanks, Max and Dan!
> >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
> I see this has only one language declaration:
>   <owl:Ontology xml:lang="fr" rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"   dc:title="Le vocabulaire de RDF et RDF Schema." />

Oops, I meant to put it on a top element that enclosed the others;
forgetting that Ontology was self-closing <Ontology/> ...

I'm just fixed it.

> and this surprises me.  None of the strings in this document
> are declared to be in 'fr' (hmm.  XML question -- does xml:lang
> apply to the values of any attributes, such as the dc:title in the
> case above?  I dunno.

Oh, interesting question! 
				But I am certain that there's no way an
> RDF processor or an XML processor will know the labels and
> comments are intended to be in French.)

You're right, it should have gone on the rdf:RDF.

BTW I believe we're bypassing the current I18N debate since these
labels/comments are plain literals not XML literals... (is that correct)

> >... 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.
> yes, this proposal makes sense to me.


> >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.
> me too ;)

And I'm glad we're not content-negotiating as well!

Received on Friday, 8 August 2003 10:48:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:07 UTC