Example (Re: Workflows for localizing RDF (Fwd: Fwd: "Organization Ontology" Japanese translation available))

Hi Dave & all again,

to make this clearer what I mean, I created an example.

1) create linked data in one language: input is http://www.w3.org/ns/org.ttl
2) extract to XLIFF: to prepare this, I created an intermediate XML 
representation, which has the following ITS rules:

  <its:rules xmlns:its="http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its" version="2.0">
     <its:translateRule selector="//*" translate="no"/>
     <its:translateRule selector="//rdfs:label[lang('en')] | 
//dct:title[lang('en')] | rdfs:comment[lang('en')]" translate="yes"/>
   </its:rules>

This means that only the RDF content is extracted that contains human 
readable English language, that is the source language of the ontology.

So the XLIFF output (see attachment) has now the advantage that the 
translator knows what to translate.

Best,

Felix

Am 07.02.14 12:39, schrieb Felix Sasaki:
> Am 07.02.14 12:30, schrieb Dave Lewis:
>> Felix,
>>
>> On 07/02/2014 10:43, Felix Sasaki wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> sorry that I could not make today's call. I am wondering if below 
>>> mail, taken from
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-translators/2014JanMar/0024.html
>>> could lead to two best practices:
>>>
>>> 1) When you prepare RDF content for translation (ontologies and or 
>>> pure statements), consider extracting the text to be translated. 
>>> That will assure that all translators do the same.
>>
>> So would this need some extraction and remerging rules for RDF in XML 
>> and turtle?
>
> The input format could be RDF in XML, Turtle, or something else. Like 
> you can generate XLIFF out of java, javascript, HTML etc.
>
>> And should we specify this generically or perhaps directly into XLIFF?
>
> I was mostly wondering about recommending a workflow
> 1) create linked data in one language
> 2) extract to XLIFF
> 3) translate
> 4) merge back into 1)
> which may makes sense for any serialization of RDF. The ITS2 metadata 
> that I had used in that slides uses the metadata in an RDF 1.1. HTML 
> literal. That data type can be used in RDF 1.1. independent of the RDF 
> serialization - it works like an XML literal.
>
>>
>> Also, in general  should we treat translation of RDF 
>> type/class/relationship names differently from translation of literals? 
>
> Actually I was just thinking of literals, nothing else. So the BP I 
> had in mind is related to literals. Good point, one has to make clear 
> that this is not about type / class etc. localization.
>
>> The MONNET guys might a good handle on this.
>>
>> Is there also best practice we should consider or reference for non 
>> text data types (xsd).
>>
>>>
>>> 2) Consider adding metadata to the RDF content to guide that 
>>> extraction, e.g. to identify fixed terms. An example how that could 
>>> work is on slide 31-32 of
>>> http://download.yandex.ru/company/experience/WSD/wsd_sasaki.pdf
>>>
>>
>> that makes sense - but do we need to have a special literal type to 
>> indicate that it should be parsed for 'inline' tags? 
>
> See above - the HTML literal
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-html
> should do the job.
>
>> Also in some cases, for example if the span had its-term--into-ref 
>> pointing to a term definitions elsewhere in the linked data cloud, 
>> best practice might be to reform (i.e. extract) the literal into a 
>> NIF subgraph, with the annotated sub-string as separate nif:string 
>> objects.
>
> Not sure if for generating an XLIFF file (see above) you would a NIF 
> subgraph. The main motivation for my BP proposal was: allow people 
> working with localization tools (= processing XLIFF files) to 
> translate labels in linke data.
>
> So all the below makes sense IMO for textual content, extracted from 
> HTML / XML etc. But processing the labels in linked data with NIF? Not 
> sure if that is needed and might even hinder XLIFF based using 
> localization workflows.
>
> Disclaimer: really nothing against NIF ;) My point is only about the 
> right approach for label translation.
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>
>>
>> A common re-merge process would also then be needed so the translated 
>> literal is available without inline mark-up for processes (idenxing, 
>> presentation) that don't care about the translation process.
>>
>> The ITS<->NIF mapping in the ITS 2.0 spec would provide a starting 
>> poitn for this:
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-its20-20131029/#conversion-to-nif
>>
>> i'd also add:
>>
>> 3) can we advise on use of some form of isTranslationOf or 
>> isTranslatedFrom (not necessarily the same?) RDF relationship to use 
>> in linked data? In CNGL we use something that is a specialisation of 
>> prov:wasDerivedFrom, but that's because we are interested recording 
>> the details of the translation processes (and hence the other 
>> provenance classes and relationships).  I could imagine there are use 
>> cases where we are interested in a 'translated from' link but not the 
>> provenance?
>>
>> cheers,
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> - Felix
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
>>> Betreff:  Fwd: "Organization Ontology" Japanese translation available
>>> Weitersenden-Datum:  Wed, 05 Feb 2014 21:47:43 +0000
>>> Weitersenden-Von:  w3c-translators@w3.org
>>> Datum:  Wed, 05 Feb 2014 21:46:48 +0000
>>> Von:  Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
>>> An:  Shuji Kamitsuna <ax2s-kmtn@asahi-net.or.jp>
>>> Kopie (CC):  w3c-translators@w3.org, Naomi Yoshizawa <naomi@w3.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi again Shuji,
>>>
>>> I've been through your translation of ORG and... this is very
>>> interesting. The person behind ORG is not the same as the people behind
>>> DCAT and the styles are quite different. One way in which this becomes
>>> obvious is that Dave Reynolds (ORG) does not give the labels for his
>>> terms in the specification, but only in the schema. Therefore, very
>>> reasonably, you have not translated the labels. When I come to transfer
>>> your work in the schema, I can only copy the comments.
>>>
>>> And, I even found a whole class in the schema that's not in the spec!
>>>
>>> Ah well, I have copied the comments into the schema as you can now see
>>> athttp://www.w3.org/ns/org.ttl. The labels are available in the other
>>> languages for Org (FR and IT) but that's because we were supplied with
>>> translations of the schema, not the spec - which is the much bigger task
>>> that you have taken on.
>>>
>>> If you or Naomi wants to send me the Japanese labels, I'll certainly add
>>> them, but the definitions are all in the schema now.
>>>
>>> Again, thank you for all your work on this.
>>>
>>> Phil.
>>>
>>> >> ------- Forwarded message -------
>>> >> From: "Shuji Kamitsuna"<ax2s-kmtn@asahi-net.or.jp>
>>> >> To:w3c-translators@w3.org
>>> >> Subject: "Organization Ontology" Japanese translation available
>>> >> Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2014 12:14:58 +0100
>>> >>
>>> >> Dear Sir and Madam
>>> >>
>>> >> This is Shuji Kamitsuna@Japan.
>>> >>
>>> >> "Organization Ontology"
>>> >>http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-vocab-org-20140116/
>>> >>
>>> >> in Japanese is available now"
>>> >>
>>> >> 組織オントロジー
>>> >>http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~ax2s-kmtn/internet/rdf/REC-vocab-org-20140116.html
>>> >>
>>> >> cf.<http://www.w3.org/2005/11/Translations/Query?rec=vocab-org&lang=any&translator=any&date=any&sorting=byTechnology&output=FullHTML&submit=Submit>
>>> >>
>>> >> Regards,
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Coralie Mercier  -  W3C Communications Team  -http://www.w3.org
>>> >>mailto:coralie@w3.org  +336 4322 0001http://www.w3.org/People/CMercier/
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ----
>>> > Ivan Herman, W3C
>>> > Digital Publishing Activity Lead
>>> > Home:http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>>> > mobile: +31-641044153
>>> > GPG: 0x343F1A3D
>>> > FOAF:http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>>
>>> Phil Archer
>>> W3C Data Activity Lead
>>> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>>>
>>> http://philarcher.org
>>> +44 (0)7887 767755
>>> @philarcher1
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>