Re: [web-annotation] Cardinality of the processingLanguage?

With all the respect .. I don't find the answers to the question 
raised by this tickets in the minutes 
 . Moreover, in the text from the minutes I se only arguments like:
* **it is hard to use more languages for text processing** (meaning 
... it is not imposible to use more)
* **should act as default processing language** (but ... the 
**default** is missing in the definition of the processing language),
* **I would prefer one language tag max** (which is a prefference ... 
but not a must, .... could be changed to be a list, with first value 
in the list being the default value)
* **language property is different for the target and the body ... for
 target, it is metadata, for body it is more text processing related**
 (the hidden meaning here is that external web resources actually 
don't (really) need a processingLanguage )
* **The i18n WG tends to refer to another type of language annotation 
as 'metadata'. This typically indicates the intended linguistic 
audience of the resource as a whole, and it's possible to imagine that
 this could, for a multilingual resource, involve a property value 
that is a list of languages.** (the "indicates the intended linguistic
 audience" ... is not reflected in the definition of the 
processingLanguage )

As conclusion, the text of the processingLanguage definition, drops a 
half of the semantics indicated in the ticket and minutes, and the 
analysis/usecases that request for introduction of this property are 
not refleted at all in the draft:

The argument for wontfix .. is that there is no new information in the
Oh no .. that's not true:
* The intention is to clarify some things so that an imporved text can
 be formulated
* There is a lot of "old information" that is considered as 
discussed/fixed, but this information is not included/reflected in the
 text of the standard. (see examples above)  

Actually these are reasons why I would consider the #213 and #335 as 
not closed as the editiorial work is incomplete. The text in the draft
 reflect only a part of the issues and solutions proposed/agreed in 
the tickets.

GitHub Notification of comment by gsergiu
Please view or discuss this issue at
 using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 8 August 2016 08:56:46 UTC