- From: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
- Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:28:38 +0200
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+u4+a1gkH8iZGNUFbym=v75rru8+XyhkkSaFi-HVuWronONuQ@mail.gmail.com>
We could check how the R2RML spec proceeded with this. Except for the relational DB they have as input the process is quite similar with SHACL. Besides sh:message, sh:name, ... the language constraint components could be in scope On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote: > Thanks for the links, Sandro. > > On the i18n topic, I have browsed through the self-review > > https://www.w3.org/International/techniques/developing-specs?collapse > > I don't see how any of this applies to us. We are defining an RDF > vocabulary that is used by machines. So all our i18n issues are handled (or > not) by RDF. Of course every RDF node in a shapes graph may have labels in > multiple languages, and that language can be explicitly stated using the > @en tags. In our own TTL file (which is not normative) we use @en labels, > BTW. > > A special mention should probably go to sh:message, which is a mechanism > to report violations back to users. Our design explicitly allows those > messages to be in multiple languages. See the sections on sh:message. > Likewise our own annotation properties sh:name and sh:description. > > But most of what SHACL does happens on the server, invisible to users. > There is also no standardized user interface to SHACL. > > Should we just go ahead and contact the I18n group at W3C with this input? > > https://www.w3.org/International/review-request > > We really ought to do something about this process requirement soon. > > Holger > > > On 23/02/2017 3:28, Sandro Hawke wrote: > >> Overview and guidance on horizontal review: >> https://www.w3.org/wiki/DocumentReview >> >> Most urgent, I think, would be (under Review Resources > >> Internationalization): https://www.w3.org/International/review-request >> >> After the Security & Privacy questionnaire is done, and there's a draft >> Considerations section in the spec, I'd send it to the Security & Privacy >> folks. >> >> I expect it'll be out-of-scope for a11y, but it's still good form to send >> it to them for review, as well. >> >> -- Sandro >> >> >> > > -- Dimitris Kontokostas Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org, http://aligned-project.eu Homepage: http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT
Received on Friday, 24 February 2017 09:30:17 UTC