RE: [dcat] issue 26 - range of dcterms:language - proposal

Two notes:

- Maybe it can be noted in the resolution text that Library of Congress
is the Registration Authority for ISO639-2, to pre-empt any questions
about the authoritativeness of the URIs

- Alternative suggestion for the sentence "The iso639-1 codes should be
preferred, and iso639-2 codes used only when no iso639-1 code is
available for a language":

"If a ISO639-1 URI is defined for a language, that URI must be used; if
no ISO639-1 URI is defined, the ISO639-2 URI must be used." (referring
to URIs not codes)


Makx.




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fadi Maali [mailto:fadi.maali@deri.org]
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:28 PM
> To: Public GLD WG
> Subject: [dcat] issue 26 - range of dcterms:language - proposal
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Based on the discussion related to issue 26:
> https://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/26
> The current proposal is to recommend using URIs defined by the Library
> of Congress in DCAT specification
> 
> copied from Richard's email before
> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2012Oct/0151.html )
> [[
> PROPOSAL: In DCAT-conformant data, values of dcterms:language MUST be
> members of some subclass, and SHOULD be ISO-639 URIs as defined by the
> Library of Congress in
> http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/iso639-1.html and
> http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/iso639-2.html
>  . The iso639-1 codes should be preferred, and iso639-2 codes used
> only when no iso639-1 code is available for a language. This resolves
> ISSUE-26
> ]]
> 
> please provide any feedback or opinion you might have.
> 
> Regards,
> Fadi

Received on Thursday, 31 January 2013 20:54:43 UTC