- From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 09:37:51 +0100
- To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Cc: Sue Ellen Wright <sellenwright@gmail.com>, Gerhard Budin <gerhard.budin@univie.ac.at>, Addison Phillips <addison@yahoo-inc.com>, Mark Davis <mark.davis@jtcsv.com>, Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
Hi Felix Thanks for jumping in. > I'm trying to understand what you want to achieve: Is it URIs for > language values, e.g. http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/language#en-US ? > Indeed. All the point is to identify and represent languages as concepts, in order to be able to make RDF assertions about them, beyond the "tag" use. > I don't think that it is feasible to have everything after "#" as an > URI, since RFC 4646 or its successor define a grammar for language tags. > Do you mean there is a technical issue forbidding to build valid URIs out of language tags? Not that although a single # namespace is the first idea which comes to mind it's not the only option. Could be as well http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/language/en/US or even an opaque URI http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/language#1234 In any case subtag elements and other properties as revision date will be explicitly attached as properties. You can't rely on the URI string to carry semantics. This is a "Semantic Web Axiom" :-) > That is, you cannot have a finite set of URIs built out of that. > Sorry, I don't catch the point. What do you mean by a "finite set"? Could you expand on that? > Have you thought of registering an XPointer scheme at W3C? E.g. > something like "language()" which can be used e.g. in > http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/language#(en-US) . You would have to > define that the scheme data "()" contains an BCP 47 identifier. > I think I see what you have in mind, but remember RDF is not mainly about the structure of a published XML document, but about the semantics of URIs. Besides the language values themselves, and even before, we need a namespace for the ontology, the "Language" class, the different "subtag" properties etc. And defining a namespace is more or less dependent of the vocabulary publication. See e.g. http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/ Hope that helps, and that we don't speak cross each other. Regards Bernard > Felix > > Bernard Vatant wrote: > >> Sue Ellen >> >> Thanks for all this. I will munch over it and try to come up with >> something by the first week of January, when everybody is out of the >> bubbles ... :-) >> >> Bernard >> >> Sue Ellen Wright a écrit : >> >>> Hi, All, >>> Indeed, I suspect that lots of people would be delighted if someone >>> wants to go ahead with this for SKOS, provided that no one has already >>> started such a project. Rather than searching for IANA, you want to >>> reference IETF BCP 47, which will be your permanent ID reference for >>> the Language Tags. My contacts on BCP 47 are Felix Sasaki, Addison >>> Phillips, and Mark Davis, but as noted, they may possibly be off line >>> right now, as many people are. On the ISO side, Gerhard Budin is the >>> Chair of ISO TC 37/SC 2, whose WG 2 is responsible for the 639 family >>> of standards. I know that he shares my view that any new initiatives >>> in this area should be oriented toward the set of codes and the syntax >>> rules contained in the current IETF RFC 4645, 4646 and 4647, taking >>> into consideration any successor recommendations of the IETF. (There >>> is, for instance, a current effort to update the recently approved >>> RFCs to bring documents into compliance with the new ISO 639-3, which >>> essentially identifies the SIL Ethnologue codes as the extended codes >>> for comprehensive identification of languages. Also bear in mind (I >>> probably said this in another email) that when it comes to xml:lang, >>> we need to concern ourselves with langauge tags per IETF, not just >>> language codes alone. >>> >>> Sorry I'm not coming up with the absolute final answer here, but >>> sooner or later, one of the IETF guys will check his mail! >>> Best regards >>> Sue Ellen >>> >>> >>> On 12/21/06, *Bernard Vatant* <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com >>> <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Sue Ellen >>> > I think you are absolutely right about this not being a significant >>> > task: the main issue is to get a variety of people from a number of >>> > communities of practice to agree on a single approach. >>> Sure enough. But at least we could help proposing at least one. :-) >>> > SKOS would certainly be one avenue. There may be others, and in the >>> > end, we may need more than one flavor in order to conform to >>> > requirements in a given environment, which is OK as long as we >>> can map >>> > successfully back and forth. >>> Yes, this is a good use case for mapping, either SKOS-to-SKOS >>> mapping, >>> or mapping from some RDF dialect to another. You know it's one of my >>> favourite topics. >>> > I'm hoping that sooner or later one of the guys for W3C will weigh >>> > into this discussion and let us know whether they are already >>> > addressing this issue. >>> I've been searching the W3C I18n Activity >>> http://www.w3.org/International/ which looks to me the place where >>> such >>> things should happen, but it looks like at first sight there is no >>> connection between this activity and the SW activity. I will >>> investigate >>> further. >>> > It's a bad time of year to hope to catch everybody monitoring their >>> > email! >>> Indeed. By the way, Happy Xmas to all :-) >>> >>> Bernard >>> > There will be an ISO TC 37 meeting in January where we'll be >>> > addressing issues regarding our own metadata registry, and this >>> will >>> > surely come up. >>> > Best regards >>> > Sue Ellen >>> > >>> > On 12/21/06, *Bernard Vatant* < bernard.vatant@mondeca.com >>> <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> >>> > <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com >>> <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>>> wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi Sue Ellen >>> > >>> > Thanks for your insights. Do you have pointers to the >>> discussions you >>> > mention, and/or any contact with people taking part in them, >>> and who >>> > would see some interest in RDF-ization of those resources? >>> (assuming >>> > such a class definition is satisfiable). >>> > Actually when one looks at >>> > http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry >>> > < http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry>, >>> the >>> > technical >>> > task of migrating its content into RDF, as long as a relevant >>> > vocabulary >>> > is defined, is quite trivial. >>> > After that it's mainly a political issue. :-) >>> > But there is a point that has not been answered so far in my >>> original >>> > question. Would SKOS a relevant format for such a >>> representation? >>> > >>> > Bernard >>> > >>> > >>> > Sue Ellen Wright a écrit : >>> > > Hi, All, >>> > > There's serious discussions going on concerning the IETF >>> > language tag >>> > > subtag registry and the ISO implementations of the 639 >>> family of >>> > > codes, so I think it makes sense to coordinate any efforts >>> in this >>> > > direction with the folks working on those two sets of >>> standards. >>> > IETF >>> > > 4647 spells out means for matching codes, but it would >>> make things a >>> > > lot simpler if we have a more or less standard format for >>> > representing >>> > > them in rdf. >>> > > Bye for now >>> > > Sue Ellen >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On 12/20/06, *Thomas Baker* <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de >>> <mailto:baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de> >>> > <mailto:baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de >>> <mailto:baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de> > >>> > > <mailto:baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de >>> <mailto:baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de> >>> > <mailto:baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de >>> <mailto:baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>> >> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 06:54:18PM +0100, Bernard >>> Vatant wrote: >>> > > > ISO-639 languages are used in XML and in RDF, and in >>> SKOS, via >>> > > their >>> > > > code used as value of xml:lang attribute. >>> > > > But for various applications, it would be >>> interesting to >>> > define >>> > > those >>> > > > languages as proper RDF resources. >>> > > > >>> > > > So far, the only attempt to do so I've found in RDF is >>> > > > http://downlode.org/rdf/iso-639/ and the description it >>> > provides is >>> > > > quite basic. >>> > > ... >>> > > >>> > > > So, we have public concepts, a lot of data to mine, we >>> > have use >>> > > cases, >>> > > > all we need is a namespace to which append ISO 639 >>> codes to >>> > > forge URIs. >>> > > > Who is likely to host and maintain that namespace? >>> > > > http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/language# >>> > > <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/language#> ? >>> > > > http://purl.org/dc/language/ >>> <http://purl.org/dc/language/> ? >>> > > ... >>> > > > Since I think we can wait for quite a while before ISO >>> > delivers >>> > > such a >>> > > > thing in its own namespace - and I would be happy to >>> be proven >>> > > wrong >>> > > > here - I wonder what kind of initiative could move >>> this thing >>> > > forward. >>> > > > Is it in DCMI intention to define those instances in >>> its own >>> > > namespace >>> > > > (Tom, any clues on that?). >>> > > >>> > > Well, I agree with the need :-) >>> > > >>> > > Several years ago, we considered opening a DCMI >>> service for the >>> > > "registration" of URIs identifying controlled >>> vocabularies for >>> > > use as encoding schemes in metadata. While the demand >>> for such >>> > > a service was clear, the project did not look >>> maintainable, >>> > > sustainable, and scalable. >>> > > >>> > > Unless URIs are coined "once and for all" and "with no >>> > > guarantees" (and how useful is that?), it is not clear >>> > > how such a namespace host should operate over time. The >>> > > impulse to "just do it" comes up against hard questions. >>> > > Even just maintaining URIs for entities in a separately >>> > > maintained ISO standard would involve a significant >>> commitment. >>> > > >>> > > Tom >>> > > >>> > > -- >>> > > Tom Baker - tbaker@tbaker.de <mailto:tbaker@tbaker.de> >>> <mailto:tbaker@tbaker.de <mailto:tbaker@tbaker.de>> >>> > <mailto:tbaker@tbaker.de <mailto:tbaker@tbaker.de> >>> <mailto:tbaker@tbaker.de <mailto:tbaker@tbaker.de>>> - >>> > > baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de >>> <mailto:baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de> >>> > <mailto:baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de >>> <mailto:baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>> <mailto: >>> > baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de >>> <mailto:baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de> >>> <mailto:baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de >>> <mailto:baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>>> >>> > >>> > >>> > <mailto:sewright@neo.rr.com <mailto:sewright@neo.rr.com>> >>> >>> >>> < http://mondeca.wordpress.com/> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Sue Ellen Wright >>> Institute for Applied Linguistics >>> Kent State University >>> Kent OH 44242 USA >>> sellenwright@gmail.com <mailto:sellenwright@gmail.com> >>> swright@kent.edu <mailto:swright@kent.edu> >>> sewright@neo.rr.com <mailto:sewright@neo.rr.com> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.26/594 - Release Date: >>> 20/12/2006 15:54 >>> >>> > > > > -- *Bernard Vatant *Knowledge Engineering ---------------------------------------------------- *Mondeca** *3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France Web: www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com> ---------------------------------------------------- Tel: +33 (0) 871 488 459 Mail: bernard.vatant@mondeca.com <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> Blog: Leçons de Choses <http://mondeca.wordpress.com/>
Received on Friday, 22 December 2006 08:38:08 UTC