- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 18:17:46 +0100
- To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Cc: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote: >Hi Tom, > > > >>That is one way to do it, but it ultimately puts a significant >>maintenance burden on the person (i.e., you) who is collecting >>and aggregating those translations into one big schema. >> >>As an alternative -- in principle, at any rate -- translators >>might maintain the translations in RDF on their own servers >>and you would merely point to them and merge their contents >>into a multi-lingual RDF description automatically. >> >> > >I think we probably need all RDF descriptions of SKOS Core to be under the same configuration management, so it may be a problem for SKOS Core to import files from other servers. > >What if we have on the W3C server e.g. > >core.rdf >core/annotations/en.rdf >core/annotations/fr.rdf > > > yup (though i'm also happy having translations managed elsewhere, once we're more stable...). >... and so on, with core.rdf containing statements like ... > ><http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core> owl:imports <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/annotations/fr> . > > I'm not sure owl:imports is very fashionable any more. I used to use it in FOAF but someone told me it wasn't good for DL tools, or something. Maybe I was importing the owl.owl or the RDF namespace? I forget, sorry for the murky memory. I'm happy with 'seeAlso' anyway... >... for each language resource, and then e.g. core/annotations/fr.rdf containing only statements involving predicates with literal range (i.e. rdfs:label, rdfs:comment, skos:definition etc.)? > >Or do we want http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core to serve a content-negotiated representation with only the annotations in the requested language? > > > Better not to hide the translations, I think. They're for machines rather than people anyhow... Dan
Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2005 17:17:48 UTC