- From: Gerard de Melo <gdemelo@mpi-inf.mpg.de>
- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:21:22 -0800
- To: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
- CC: "M. Scott Marshall" <mscottmarshall@gmail.com>, Barry Norton <barry.norton@ontotext.com>, public-lod@w3.org, Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@ontopia.net>
- Message-ID: <4F3D5732.7090304@mpi-inf.mpg.de>
Hi Bernard, > I think now we should forget about URIs published by pionneer projects > such as OASIS TC, lingvoj.org <http://lingvoj.org> and lexvo.org > <http://lexvo.org>, and stick to URIs published by genuine authority > Library of Congress which is as close to the primary source as can be. > So if you want to use a URI for Ancient Greek as defined by ISO 639-2, > please use http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/iso639-2/grc. > > BTW Lars Marius, hello, what do you think? URIs at id.loc.gov > <http://id.loc.gov> are really what we were dreaming to achieve in > 2001, right? Now of course I may be a bit biased here, but I do not believe that the id.loc.gov service solves all of the problems. This is from the Lexvo.org FAQ [1]: > The advantage of using those URIs is that they are maintained by the > Library of Congress. However, there are also several issues to > consider. First of all, ISO 639-2 is orders of magnitude smaller than > ISO 639-3 and for example lacks an adequate code for Cantonese, which > is spoken by over 60 million speakers. > More importantly, the LOC's URIs do not describe languages per se but > rather describe code-mediated conceptualizations of languages. This > implies, for instance, that the French language > (<http://lexvo.org/id/iso639-3/fra>) has two different counterparts at > the LOC, <http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/iso639-2/fra> and > <http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/iso639-2/fre>, which each have slightly > different properties. > Finally, connecting your data to Lexvo.org's information is likely to > be more useful in practical applications. It offers information about > the languages themselves, e.g. where they are spoken, while the LOC > mostly provides information about the codes, e.g. when the codes were > created and updated and what kind of code they are. > In practice, you can also use both codes simultaneously in your data. > However, you need to be very careful to make sure that you are > asserting that a publication is written in French rather than in some > concept of French created on January, 1, 1970 in the United States. Best, Gerard [1] http://www.lexvo.org/linkeddata/faq.html -- Gerard de Melo [demelo@icsi.berkeley.edu] http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~demelo/
Received on Thursday, 16 February 2012 19:22:05 UTC