W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2005

Re: XMLLiterals and language

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:29:31 +0000
Message-ID: <41EE8AEB.9070000@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Reto Bachmann-Gmuer <reto@gmuer.ch>
Cc: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, www-international@w3.org



I am not at all convinced that this issue is irrelevant outside the
semantic web domain. e.g. a text-to-speech system should, pronounce
english words quite differently when in an italian mode, since italian
speakers typically use italian pronounciation rules for english words
being used in italian sentences. As an English mother-tongue speaker,
with reasonable italian the most difficult sentences I find to
understand are such mixed sentences.

<span xml:lang="it">
Abbiamo fatto questo lavoro per il progetto
<span xml:lang="en">"Question How"</span>
</span>

the words "question how" are pronounced quite differently from in
English (even when the mother tongue italian speaker is a fluent english
speaker). (bitter experience here!)

Jeremy

Reto Bachmann-Gmuer wrote:
> 
> Martin Duerst wrote:
> 
>> It seems to me that what Reto is looking for is a way to define
>> a "primary language" for a small piece of data that itself is in
>> a different language. Because such divergent cases are very rare,
>> it seems they have been overlooked up to now.
>>  
>>
> I don't think this cases are that rare, looking at German computer books 
> many titles consist only of English words, however they are the German 
> titles (the first is relevant for pronunciation, the latter for semantic 
> processing).
> 
>> To me, the right thing to do seems to be to define the "primary"
>> or "intended" language separately (e.g. with a separate property),
>> but to define that property so that it defaults to the text
>> processing language.
>>
> Having a primary language for Literals would be fine, however I think 
> the text processing language (specified in the xml) should default to 
> the primary language (which imho should be defined by means of rdf) 
> rather than the other way round. This seems more coherent with 
> plain-literals and particularly it does not require RDF-Processors to 
> understand and parse XML in order to do things like filtering by language.
> 
>> I'm glad to report that I just found the 'payload' module in
>> RSS 1.1 (http://inamidst.com/rss1.1/payload) that uses XML
>> Literals rather than encoding. Great!
> 
> 
> That's cool, and it would be cooler with the possibility to specify a 
> language for the whole payload (even when some of the rare cases apply).
> 
> reto
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2005 16:29:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:12 GMT