- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 22:39:47 +0000
- To: Stasinos Konstantopoulos <konstant@iit.demokritos.gr>
- Cc: "Maali, Fadi" <fadi.maali@deri.org>, Government Linked Data Working Group WG <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
On 8 Dec 2011, at 20:36, Stasinos Konstantopoulos wrote:
> I also find the use of URIs more agreeable than plain literals.
>
> Notice that lingvoj.org recommend using the lexvo.org vocabulary over
> their own. lexvo.org have published URIs derived from ISO-639 codes,
> eg http://www.lexvo.org/page/iso639-3/ell for Modern Greek. These are
> instances of http://lexvo.org/ontology#Language which is, conveniently
> enough, a subClassOf http://purl.org/dc/terms/LinguisticSystem [1].
So what do we say in dcat then? Do we say that Lexvo URIs should be used in dcat?
That would bring us right back to some of the issues we discussed in the call today. Should we ask governments to rely on a service that is provided by an individual without any kind of organisation behind him?
Another option would be to recommend that a URI be used to identify languages, but leaving it to each publisher what URI to use. This would probably mean that many catalogs mint and use many different URIs for the same thing, e.g., the English language.
One more idea would be to rely on the xsd:language datatype of XML Schema, for example:
[] dcterms:language "en"^^xsd:language.
The lexical representations of this datatype are again taken from BCP 47 (in XSD 1.1; it was RFC 3066 in XSD 1.0).
The datatype would ensure that there is no doubt about how to interpret the string "en".
Best,
Richard
Received on Thursday, 8 December 2011 22:40:19 UTC