Re: I18n and Linked Data - an important (but fixable) omission?

This looks good to me, many thanks, Tom.

Felix

2011/9/8 Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>

> On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 10:28:00AM -0700, Karen Coyle wrote:
> > We could probably handle this the same way we handle the issue of
> > "libraries, archives, museums, and other cultural and memory
> > organizations" -- by adding a note to the scope in which we define
> > URI as including IRIs where appropriate, but using URI throughout
> > the document because that's the most common terminology.
>
> I added this parenthetical comment into Scope [1]:
>
>    (While this report follows common practice in emphasizing URIs, readers
>    should note the increasing role of Internationalized Resource
> Identifiers
>    (IRIs) [2] as multilingual Web addresses [3] that support non-Latin
>    scripts.)
>
> For the benefit of non-LLD-XG members: The Scope statement is at the top of
> the
> report [4].
>
> Is everyone happy with this wording and these references?
>
> Tom
>
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Scope&diff=6324&oldid=6261
> [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3987
> [3] http://www.w3.org/International/articles/idn-and-iri/
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion
>
> >
> > kc
> >
> > Quoting Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@dfki.de>:
> >
> > >Dear Tom,
> > >
> > >2011/9/8 Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
> > >
> > >>On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 12:28:03PM +0200, Felix Sasaki wrote:
> > >>> > Paragraph or sentence may be up for discussion, but not mentioning
> it
> > >>would
> > >>> > be a very sad omission.
> > >>>
> > >>> I agree. Antoine, in case you see a place where this would fit
> without
> > >>being
> > >>> "too prominent", please provide a pointer.
> > >>
> > >>Felix, all,
> > >>
> > >>If we were to insert a pointer, to what resource should it point?  To
> [1],
> > >>[2],
> > >>[3], [4]...?
> > >>
> > >
> > >I would point to [1] since it is the normative definition of IRIs, and
> [3]
> > >since it provides good guidance on the topic. When pointing to [1], you
> > >should say "rfc 3987 or its successor". [2] is under development and
> will be
> > >the successor of [1].
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >
> > >Felix
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >>Tom
> > >>
> > >>[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3987
> > >>[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis-07
> > >>[3] http://www.w3.org/International/articles/idn-and-iri/
> > >>[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalized_Resource_Identifier
> > >>
> > >>--
> > >>Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Karen Coyle
> > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> > ph: 1-510-540-7596
> > m: 1-510-435-8234
> > skype: kcoylenet
> >
>
> --
> Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
>