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

On 9 Sep 2011, at 19:21, Tom Baker wrote:

> 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.

+1 -- particularly your location proposal makes sense.


> 
>> 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?

Here's an attempt:
A URI--or Uniform Resource Identifier--is a string of characters used as an identifier. ISBNs and Web URLs are both examples of URIs. While this report follows common practice in emphasizing URIs, readers should note the increasing role of Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs) as multilingual Web addresses that support non-Latin scripts.

Jeff? Others? Thoughts/improvements?

-Jodi

> 
> Tom
> 
> -- 
> Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>