W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ld4lt@w3.org > July 2014

Re: ACTION-7 "Check with w3c groups if there are other approches to represent languages as uris"

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 12:28:46 +0200
Cc: public-ld4lt@w3.org
Message-Id: <9AA8E055-CA04-452A-A395-70A342737D74@w3.org>
To: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
Hi Dave,

Am 17.07.2014 um 11:37 schrieb Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>:

> Hi Felix,
> Thank's for this, I'll include it in the agenda for today.
> One point:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/#Property:catalog_language
> defines the language used in the meta-data, and for that purpose is probably sufficient.
> However, the others seem more relevant to specifying the language of the LanguageResource that is the subject of the meta-data.
> For this i'd tend to agree that some way of allowing different schemes to be used for applications that need them, e.g. lexical resources or resource focussed for language preservation.
> But where more specialised language code requirements are not in place, then we still should specify the best practice, e.g. dct:LinguisticSystem as specified in dcat for catalogue_language, in order to promote interoperability in codes as far as possible.

That is what I am not sure about. The dcat specification itself is ambiguous. If you click on the link of „dct:language“, it brings you to
and that defines languages as an RFC 4646 value, which includes ISO 639-3 and much more. But if you follow the links 1 and 2 of
Resources defined by the Library of Congress (1, 2) SHOULD be used.
 you are lead to the ISO 639 one and two codes. So it is a bit difficult to understand what it actually means: use dct:LinguisticSystem as specified in dcat.



> The current ms vocab already supports this specialisation, for example having ms:linguisticInformation information for the ms:LexicalConceptualResource subclass, which seems reasonable.
> cheers,
> Dave
> On 04/07/2014 13:06, Felix Sasaki wrote:
>> I did this and was pointed to this proposal was rejected both for RDF 1.0 and RDF 1.1, see for the later this thread
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Oct/0001.html
>> which at least Jose Labra and probably Jorge are already aware of, see
>> http://www.weso.es/MLODPatterns/Linguistic_metadata.html
>> So now we have at least four different approaches for the same purpose websites,
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/#Property:catalog_language
>> http://lingvoj.org/
>> http://www.lexvo.org/
>> http://glottolog.org/
>> I am wondering what best practice to derive from this - one suggestion was to use owl:sameAs between these in appropriate situations. Thoughts?
>> - Felix

Received on Thursday, 17 July 2014 10:29:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:16:10 UTC