W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > February 2007

Re: [SKOS] languages and scripts

From: Jakob Voss <jakob.voss@gbv.de>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 10:41:55 +0100
Message-ID: <45CAF063.9050001@gbv.de>
Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org

Bernard Vatant wrote:

> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2006Dec/0033.html
> I'd never had any feedback about the latter, although we are now well
> ahead into the next year ... :-(
> but seems that Jakob is walking along similar lines.
> Jakob, did you look at http://esw.w3.org/topic/Languages_as_RDF_Resources?
> What do you think?

Thanks for pointing me to your proposal. I merged the pages but there
are some differences between our approaches. I'd completely build upon
SKOS instead of using different classes and OWL:

<skos:Concept rdf:about='#zh'>
<skos:Concept rdf:about='#Hant'>
  <skos:altLabel>Han (Traditional variant)</skos:altLabel>
<skos:Concept rdf:about='#HK'>
  <skos:altLabel>Hong Kong</skos:altLabel>
<skos:Concept rdf:about='#zh-Hant'>
  <skos:altLabel>traditional Chinese</skos:altLabel>
  <skos:broader rdf:resource='#zh'/>
  <skos:broader rdf:resource='#Hant'/>
<skos:Concept rdf:about='#zh-Hant-HK'>
  <skos:altLabel>Hong Kong Chinese in traditional script</skos:altLabel>
  <skos:broader rdf:resource='#zh-Hant'/>
  <skos:broader rdf:resource='#HK'/>

But as far as I understand this is no contradiction - my proposal may be
a less detailed subset of yours.

By the way I'd prefer to use skos:notation and/or skos:title and
skos:Coordination but these are not defined yet.

Received on Thursday, 8 February 2007 09:42:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:45:38 UTC