W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: Language tag education and negotiation

From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 20:10:17 +0200
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20080506195908.0343a590@esat.kuleuven.be>
To: www-international@w3.org

Hi Mark,

At 16:47 6/05/2008, Mark Davis wrote:
>I'd suspect the issue is not whether it is a translation (there are 
>good and bad translations), but whether it is of the same quality. 
>That is, often the non-main language material can be worse because
>    * it is a bad translation, or
>    * it is not kept up to date, or
>    * it is not complete.
I understand the difference, but one has to start with something.
My point was that it is probably unnecessary to strain 
language-tagging mechanisms for the identification of translations or 
original versions because other metadata mechanisms are also available.
Neither language tagging nor Dublin Core metadata currently address 
the (relative) quality of resources, unless I have overlooked something.

Best regards,

Christophe


>On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 6:49 AM, Christophe Strobbe 
><<mailto:christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be> 
>wrote:
> >
> >
> >  At 17:16 28/04/2008, John Cowan wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Asmus Freytag scripsit:
> > >
> > > > There are parts of the planets where it is common for people to command
> > > > more than one language.
> > >
> > > Most of it, indeed.
> > >
> > > > Of course, a meta tag that (reliably :-) ) described something as
> > > > 'translation', or conversely as 'official language version' would be
> > > > useful, too.
> > >
> > > This would be a good use case for a BCP 47 registered extension,
> > > something like 't-*' to report the translation status of a document.
> > > Off the top of my head, the obvious candidates would be t-original,
> > > t-authentic (for documents which are "equally authentic" in all language
> > > versions), t-polished, t-rough, and t-machine.
> > >
> >
> >  Maybe this should be covered by Dublin Core metadata elements instead of
> > just "language tags".
> >  "Using Dublin Core - The Elements"
> > 
> <<http://dublincore.org/documents/usageguide/elements.shtml>http://dublincore.org/documents/usageguide/elements.shtml> 
> has element
> > refinements (for the Relation element) such as "IsBasisFor" and 
> "IsBasedOn",
> > which could be used for this.
> >
> >  The "DCMI Government-Application Profile"
> > 
> <<http://dublincore.org/groups/government/profile-200111.shtml>http://dublincore.org/groups/government/profile-200111.shtml> 
> also lists
> > the following element refinements:
> >  - isBasedOn: The resource is a performance, production, derivation,
> > translation, adaptation or interpretation of another resource.
> >  - isBasisOf: The resource has a performance, production, derivation,
> > translation, adaptation or interpretation, namely, the referenced resource.
> >  (Note that this document says "isBasisOf" instead of "isBasisFor"; I
> > haven't found more "authoritative"/up-to-date versions of these documents.)
> >
> >  Best regards,
> >
> >  Christophe Strobbe
>
>--
>Mark

---
Please don't invite me to LinkedIn, Facebook, Quechup or other 
"social networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but 
I haven't.

-- 
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
Research Group on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/ 


Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Tuesday, 6 May 2008 18:11:07 GMT

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