W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > April to June 2007

Re: [Fwd: Language Ontology]

From: Elisa F. Kendall <ekendall@sandsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:46:35 -0700
Message-ID: <462D455B.1030602@sandsoft.com>
To: Debbie Garside <md@ictenterprise.co.uk>
CC: 'WWW International' <www-international@w3.org>, 'Semantic web list' <semantic-web@w3.org>, 'LTRU Working Group' <ltru@ietf.org>
Hi Debbie,

Thanks for the warning.  We did know that it was incomplete, but are 
interested in representations of place names in local languages, so 
having a structure for capturing this information, even if incomplete, 
is useful.  We're also looking at other government and research 
community resources to assist with both structure and content.  If you 
have suggestions for references, that would be helpful.

Best regards,

Elisa

Debbie Garside wrote:

> Please be very careful with the use of the "Administrative Language" 
> information from ISO 3166-1.  It is incomplete and therefore not good 
> data.
>  
> For example, it shows only two "Administrative Languages" for India 
> where there are at least twenty-two.  I am hoping that this 
> information will be taken out of the standard in the near future.  I 
> am currently writing an ISO NWIP for a revision of ISO 3166-1 which 
> will include a proposal for the deletion of this data.
>  
> Best regards
>  
> Debbie Garside
> Editor ISO DIS 639-6
> www.geolang.com <http://www.geolang.com>
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     From: www-international-request@w3.org
>     [mailto:www-international-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Elisa F.
>     Kendall
>     Sent: 23 April 2007 18:25
>     To: Misha Wolf
>     Cc: Gauri.Salokhe@FAO.ORG; WWW International; Semantic web list;
>     LTRU Working Group
>     Subject: Re: [Fwd: Language Ontology]
>
>     Hi Misha,
>
>     We are very aware of it, and have been following the work, but I
>     failed to mention it in the email.  I should say that our ontology
>     was developed for offline use in an internal system, as an initial
>     requirement.  Having said that, if you look at the RFCs, they only
>     describe tags, not an RDF vocabulary or OWL ontology.  Our
>     approach is compatible with the RFCs but adds capabilities that
>     support co-reference resolution, for example, in target application.
>
>     Best,
>
>     Elisa
>
>     Misha Wolf wrote:
>
>>     This sounds very worrying as you don't seem to be aware of BCP 47.
>>      
>>     Misha
>>
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     From: www-international-request@w3.org
>>     [mailto:www-international-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Elisa F.
>>     Kendall
>>     Sent: 23 April 2007 17:32
>>     To: Gauri.Salokhe@FAO.ORG
>>     Cc: 'WWW International'; Semantic web list
>>     Subject: Re: [Fwd: Language Ontology]
>>
>>     Hi Gauri,
>>
>>     We've done this for some of our government customers, using
>>     essentially the second approach you cite.  We're also in the
>>     process of relating the ontology to another one we've built to
>>     represent ISO 3166, which includes the administrative languages
>>     used by countries and non-sovereign territories  represented in
>>     that standard.
>>
>>     If you can hang out for a few days, we (Sandpiper) are just
>>     finalizing a version that includes both ISO 639-1 and 639-2. The
>>     approach is more of a hybrid of the two you present, based on
>>     customer needs.  It includes a fragment of ISO 1087, and also
>>     some inverse relations since there is a one-to-one correspondence
>>     between languages and codes.  We elected to create a 'Language'
>>     class, rather than 'LanguageCode', which we reuse in other
>>     applications; classes for Alpha-2Code and Alpha-3Code are
>>     subclasses of CodeElement, from ISO 5127, with instances of these
>>     codes as first class individuals. We use literals (via datatype
>>     properties) to represent the set of English, French, and in the
>>     case of 639-1 Indigenous names.  We've also created subclasses of
>>     Alpha-3Code to support distinctions between bibliographic and
>>     terminologic, collective, and special identifiers, with
>>     individual and macrolanguages to support 639-3.  A subsequent
>>     release will include all of the languages described in ISO 639-3,
>>     as well as additions to support at least some of the subtagging
>>     that Dan mentions, fyi.  Our intent is to publish it on a new
>>     portal that will become part of a new service offered by the
>>     Ontology PSIG in the OMG, since we've been asked to publish
>>     several ontologies in recent RFPs.  I'll be happy to send our
>>     preliminary version when it's "baked and tested", and follow up
>>     with an announcement of the new portal (where a revision using
>>     OMG URIs will be posted) once that's available.  It may be a
>>     couple of months before we're ready to make that announcement,
>>     but we're hoping that the service will be useful to many of us in
>>     the Semantic Web community.
>>
>>     Best regards,
>>
>>     Elisa
>>
>>     Dan Brickley wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>     Forwarding from the Dublin Core list, in case folk here can advise.
>>>
>>>     Gauri, one thing I'd suggest as useful would be to take the
>>>     concepts implicit in RFC 4646,
>>>
>>>     http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4646.txt
>>>     see also
>>>     http://www.w3.org/International/articles/language-tags/Overview.en.php
>>>
>>>
>>>     ...and in particular the subtag mechanism, script, region,
>>>     variant etc.
>>>
>>>     It would be great to have those expressed explicitly.
>>>
>>>     cheers,
>>>
>>>     Dan
>>>
>>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>     Subject:
>>>     Language Ontology
>>>     From:
>>>     "Salokhe, Gauri (KCEW)" <Gauri.Salokhe@FAO.ORG>
>>>     Date:
>>>     Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:28:39 +0200
>>>     To:
>>>     DC-GENERAL@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
>>>
>>>     To:
>>>     DC-GENERAL@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
>>>
>>>
>>>Dear All, 
>>>
>>>We are working on creating Ontology for languages. The need came up as we
>>>tried to convert our XML metadata files into OWL. In our metadata (XML)
>>>records, we have three types of occurrences of language information. 
>>>
>>><dc:language scheme="ags:ISO639-1">En</dc:language>
>>><dc:language scheme="dcterms:ISO639-2">eng</dc:language>
>>><dc:language>English</dc:language>
>>>
>>>
>>>We have two options for modelling the language ontology:
>>>
>>>1) Create a class for each language, assign URI to it and add all the other
>>>lexical variations, ISO codes (create datatype property) as follows:
>>>
>>>OWL:Thing
>>>|_ Class:Language
>>>	|_ Instance:URI1
>>>		|_ rdfs:label xml:lang="en" English
>>>		|_ rdfs:label xml:lang="es" InglÚs
>>>		|_ rdfs:label xml:lang="it" Inglese
>>>		|_ rdfs:label xml:lang="fr" Anglais
>>>		|_ etc.
>>>		|_ property:hasISO639-1Code  en (string)
>>>		|_ property:hasISO639-2Code  eng (string)
>>>		|_ etc.
>>>	|_ Instance:URI2
>>>	|_ Instance:URI3
>>>	|_ Instance:URI4
>>>
>>>
>>>2) Create Classes called Language and Language code and make links between
>>>instances of Language and Language Codes as follows:
>>>
>>>
>>>OWL:Thing
>>>|_ Class:Language
>>>	|_ Instance:URI1
>>>		|_ property:hasCode  en  (link to the en instance of Class
>>>ISO639-1 below)
>>>		|_ property:hasCode  eng  (link to the eng instance of Class
>>>ISO639-1 below)
>>>
>>>|_ Class:LanguageCode
>>>	|_ SubClass ISO639-1
>>>		|_ Instance:en
>>>		|_ Instance:fr
>>>		|_ etc.
>>>	|_ SubClass ISO639-2
>>>		|_ Instance:eng
>>>		|_ Instance:fra
>>>		|_ etc.
>>>	|_ etc.
>>>
>>>Does anyone have similar experience with modelling in OWL? Any suggestions on
>>>which model is better and (extensible)? Does an ontology already exist that
>>>we can reuse?
>>>
>>>Than you, 
>>>Gauri
>>>  
>>>
>>
>>     This email was sent to you by Reuters, the global news and
>>     information company.
>>     To find out more about Reuters visit www.about.reuters.com
>>
>>     Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
>>     sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be
>>     the views of Reuters Limited.
>>
>>     Reuters Limited is part of the Reuters Group of companies, of
>>     which Reuters Group PLC is the ultimate parent company. Reuters
>>     Group PLC - Registered office address: The Reuters Building,
>>     South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 5EP, United Kingdom
>>     Registered No: 3296375
>>     Registered in England and Wales
>>
Received on Monday, 23 April 2007 23:46:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:17:13 GMT