Re: BPMLOD and string metadata

Thanks, Gregg, for the additional explanations.

This topic may go too far in a different direction, but what I would 
like be able is to formulate triples like the following:

<https://www.w3.org/ns/i18n#en> a ex:LanguageTag.

Having such language tag URIs  would allow to link the BCP 47 language 
tags to further information, e.g. via this triple

<https://www.w3.org/ns/i18n#en> skos:related 
<http://lexvo.org/id/iso639-3/eng>

As said above, maybe this is a off-topic here and a topic for the i18n 
WG, or the RDF-Star working group.

Felix

Am 2023-02-07 20:03, schrieb Gregg Kellogg:
> 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 Wednesday, 8 February 2023 11:02:02 UTC