Re: BPMLOD and string metadata

Dear Richard, dear all,

just skimming through your documents, I was wondering how the recommended
<https://w3c.github.io/string-meta/#language-metadata> metadata approach
looks like in practice. Would the general recommendation be to use language
indexing <https://w3c.github.io/string-meta/#localization-considerations>,
then? I see some issues with that because the same concept can have
multiple lexicalizations in the same language (say, "Severe acute
respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2"@en alongside "SARS‑CoV‑2"@en, "Wuhan
Corona virus"@en, etc.), but the use of a dict here implies you get one
string per language max.

Also, are there any constraints or recommendations about the metadata
vocabulary (apologies if I overlooked) ? From the linguistic side, BCP47
has been criticized a lot because people would like to add more metadata
than ISO 632 or BCP47 support (Gillis-Webber & Tittel 2019, 2020), BCP47
covers ISO 632-1 and ISO 632-2 only, but not ISO 632-3 (which is needed for
"smaller" languages), ISO 632-3 is insufficient by itself (so that people
introduce alternative classifications, e.g., Nordhoff et al. 2011), and
most people seem to actually prefer to identify languages by URIs in order
to provide explicit metadata (De Melo 2015, Nordhoff et al. 2011).

So far, it seems this discussion in the LLOD community is largely detached
from the discussion in the W3C Internationalization Working Group, but
these things should definitely be connected to get the perspectives of spec
developers, providers and consumers of linguistic/language data covered.
Thank you for taking the initiative!

Best,
Christian

Refs:

Gillis-Webber, F., & Tittel, S. (2019). The shortcomings of language tags
for linked data when modeling lesser-known languages. In *2nd Conference on
Language, Data and Knowledge (LDK 2019)*. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum
fuer Informatik.

Gillis-Webber, F., & Tittel, S. (2020, May). A framework for shared
agreement of language tags beyond ISO 639. In *Proceedings of the Twelfth
Language Resources and Evaluation Conference* (pp. 3333-3339).

De Melo, G. (2015). Lexvo. org: Language-related information for the
linguistic linked data cloud. *Semantic Web*, *6*(4), 393-400.

Nordhoff, S., & Hammarström, H. (2011). Glottolog/Langdoc: Defining
dialects, languages, and language families as collections of
resources. In *First
International Workshop on Linked Science 2011-In conjunction with the
International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2011)*.


Am Do., 2. Feb. 2023 um 09:57 Uhr schrieb Jorge Gracia del Río <
jogracia@unizar.es>:

> Dear Richard,
>
> Thanks for this update! We will certainly take a closer look at the report
>
> Best,
> Jorge
>
>
> El mié, 1 feb 2023 a las 18:14, r12a (<ishida@w3.org>) escribió:
>
>> dear BPMLOD folks,
>>
>> Best wishes for your relaunch!
>>
>> Since the last round of work on BPMLOD the W3C Internationalization
>> Working Group has spent a lot of time talking with spec developers about
>> how to attach metadata to strings to indicate the language and the
>> directionality of the string.  For example, JSON LD adopted some new
>> approaches to allow the management of this information.[1]  I wonder
>> whether this is something that would be of interest to the BPMLOD group.
>>
>> We produced a document called Strings on the Web: Language and Direction
>> Metadata (https://w3c.github.io/string-meta/
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://w3c.github.io/string-meta/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Rgepxj7QNGkaui_sSstuffPD7xC42Z6-Te9byilqDIDG0ByuYwhfbhg8QcGhfw2zkKknCuRt4oXLKQ$>)
>> which gives an overview of our current thinking.
>>
>> best regards,
>> Richard
>>
>>
>> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/#string-internationalization
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/*string-internationalization__;Iw!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Rgepxj7QNGkaui_sSstuffPD7xC42Z6-Te9byilqDIDG0ByuYwhfbhg8QcGhfw2zkKknCuSeM8ekBQ$>
>>
>