Re: telco this Friday

Am 30.01.14 12:09, schrieb John P. McCrae:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 7:47 AM, Philipp Cimiano 
> <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de 
> <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>> wrote:
>
>     Dear all,
>
>      I am afraid I will not be able to attend the ontolex telco this
>     Friday. I will now work on the document, so please provide your
>     feedback by email.
>
>     I would kindly ask you all to work on the sections in the document
>     assigned to you ;-)
>
>     Other that that I wanted to clarify one issue regarding language
>     codes in the example.
>
>     I have seen that some people (John?) have started to use the ISO
>     639-2 codes (e.g. "ENG" for English, "SPA" for Spanish etc.).
>     I would propose we stick to the ISO 639-1 two-letter ISO 639-1
>     codes (e.g. "EN", "ES") etc. There is no particular reason for
>     this other than the fact that most people know these codes.
>
> Yes that would be me, I use the ISO 639-3 codes as they represent the 
> most complete and usable list of codes. At any rate, this is not part 
> of our standardization efforts and applications must support 
> well-formatted codes using any ISO standard
>
>
>     If the argument is recency and reusing the newest standard, then
>     we would have to go anyway for four letter codes according to ISO
>     639-6.
>
> Erm 639-6 has a different purpose... it is not really appropriate here 
> (and is equal to 639-3 for standard languages anyway)
>
>
>     Regarding the particular versions of a language spoken in a
>     particular country, I recommend we follow the principle of IETF
>     tags which consists of the ISO code followed (if applicable) by a
>     hyphen and the ISO 3166-1 code of the country. Thus the variation
>     of English spoken
>     in the United States would be: "en-us" while the version of
>     English spoken in Great Britain would be "en-gb".
>
> There is a standard for this, namely RFC 5646

Hi John, all,

just to be picky, there is BCP 47 ("Best Common Practice") that defines 
language tags and matching of language tags. Various RFCs have been 
published about language tags, but the stable reference, that is "latest 
version" identifier for this, is always
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/bcp/bcp47.txt
or in HTML http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47
currently it says "Request for Comments: 5646" at the top (the languge 
tag part) and RFC 4647 later (the matching part). You can find the 
previous RFCs by clickling on the "obsoletes" links, e.g. "Obsoletes: 
4646 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4646> "

- Felix

> , and we should follow that as with all RDF. (It does agree with your 
> proposal here though)
>
> Regards,
> John
>
>
>     I hope this is fine for everyone. I will add this information to
>     the document.
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Philipp.
>
>     -- 
>
>     Prof. Dr. Philipp Cimiano
>
>     Phone: +49 521 106 12249 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012249>
>     Fax: +49 521 106 12412 <tel:%2B49%20521%20106%2012412>
>     Mail: cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
>     <mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>
>
>     Forschungsbau Intelligente Systeme (FBIIS)
>     Raum 2.307
>     Universität Bielefeld
>     Inspiration 1
>     33619 Bielefeld
>
>
>