Re: BPMLOD and string metadata

On Feb 7, 2023, at 9:32 AM, felix@sasakiatcf.com wrote:
> 
> Thanks a lot for this pointer, Gregg. The i18n namespace is a great step and maybe 90% of what is needed.
> 
> Is it also possible to use the i18n namespace with a language tag only? E.g. to have s.t. like
> 
> [
>  ex:title "The history of the World Wide Web"^^i18n:en;
> ]

In principle, yes, although the @ form is more relaxed in terms of the case of the language tag. You can also just specify the text direction without a language (if it made sense to do so) using ^^_rtl, for example.

If this is the direction the WG goes in, there may be some semantic restrictions placed on this. 

Gregg

> Best,
> 
> Felix
> 
> Am 2023-02-07 01:18, schrieb Gregg Kellogg:
>>>> On Feb 2, 2023, at 2:36 AM, felix@sasakiatcf.com wrote:
>>> Dear Christian and all,
>>> I agree that currently there is a disconnect between the
>>> stakeholders. One technical step to take would be to provide BCP 47
>>> identifiers as URIs, ideally even as RDF based URIs, so that others
>>> can attach to the URIs the missing metadata and re-use them in other
>>> contexts.
>>> I tried to argue for that in the i18n WG, but we did not proceed so
>>> far, also or mainly because of responsibilities: who should host
>>> such URIs, the IETF or W3C or the Unicode consortium? Or should we
>>> just write a description how to construct the URIs? Maybe this
>>> thread helps to re-animate the discussion.
>> There’s an open issue [1] on planned updates to RDF Concepts from
>> the RDF-star working group. This considers a couple of ways to handle
>> text direction in RDF including the Compound Literal [2] and i18n
>> namespace [3] experimental features from JSON-LD 1.1, which were
>> constrained by compatibility with RDF 1.1. RDF 1.2 is focused on
>> making annotations on RDF statements, and there’s a proposal that
>> could leverage this, in addition to better formalizing the other
>> mechanisms. I don’t expect the RDF-star group to have too much
>> bandwidth to focus on this now, but we’ll need to do something for
>> RDF Concepts and related recommendations (about 21 in all).
>> Gregg
>> [1] https://github.com/w3c/rdf-concepts/issues/9
>> [2]
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/#the-rdf-compoundliteral-class-and-the-rdf-language-and-rdf-direction-properties
>> [3] https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/#the-i18n-namespace
>>> Best,
>>> Felix
>>> Am 2023-02-02 10:58, schrieb Christian Chiarcos:
>>> Dear Richard, dear all,
>>> just skimming through your documents, I was wondering how the
>>> recommended [3] metadata approach looks like in practice. Would the
>>> general recommendation be to use language indexing [4], 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/ [1]) which
>>> gives an overview of our current thinking.
>>> best regards,
>>> Richard
>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/#string-internationalization
>>> [2]
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1]
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://w3c.github.io/string-meta/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Rgepxj7QNGkaui_sSstuffPD7xC42Z6-Te9byilqDIDG0ByuYwhfbhg8QcGhfw2zkKknCuRt4oXLKQ$
>> [2]
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/*string-internationalization__;Iw!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Rgepxj7QNGkaui_sSstuffPD7xC42Z6-Te9byilqDIDG0ByuYwhfbhg8QcGhfw2zkKknCuSeM8ekBQ$
>> [3] https://w3c.github.io/string-meta/#language-metadata
>> [4] https://w3c.github.io/string-meta/#localization-considerations

Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2023 19:03:31 UTC