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

On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 06:08:21PM +0100, Jodi Schneider wrote:
> This complicates the section on Linked Data -- one of the key places I think
> we need to simplify. So I would propose reverting that change, so that this
> paragraph focuses only on Linked Data -- the concept it is defining.

I take your point that squeezing a reference to IRIs into a definition of 
"Linked Data" interrupts the flow of that brief definition.

> Then, if we do feel the need to cover URIs in the Scope section, I'd rather
> that we gave it its own line (similar to how we define "libraries").

That sounds like a good solution.  I think the section should end with
"Library Linked Data", so my preference would be to insert a new item 
between "Linked Data" and "Open Data" -- i.e., right after "Linked Data".
Maybe it could be called "Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)", define
URIs, and refer also to IRIs.

> Alternately we might want to put it in the "Available Technologies" Appendix
> section of the report: We have considerably simplified a number of issues in
> the main report.

I think IRIs are important enough to emphasize up-front -- in the Appendix,
the point would be much less prominent.

> While I'm not sure that the *term* "IRI" is that much harder to understand
> than "URI" (which is different from the "URL" which is in common practice),
> you make a good point that URIs, rather than IRIs, are currently emphasized
> in Linked Data. It would be helpful to know whether, for instance, the
> National Diet Library is currently using IRIs for Linked Data.

...or indeed, whether the advocates of IRIs advocate their use in libraries
regardless of scripts used -- i.e., even for Latin-script URIs?  Bottom line:
since this report is about Linked Data, and the Linked Data message always 
talks about URIs (or even URLs), I think we need to stick with URIs.  But we 
can and should draw attention to IRIs up-front.  Inserting a separate item
into Scope would do that even better than the solution I proposed.

Would you like to propose a text?


Tom Baker <>

Received on Friday, 9 September 2011 18:22:48 UTC