Re: telco today at 15:00

2014-06-06 19:27 GMT+02:00 John P. McCrae <jmccrae@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>:

>
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Manuel Fiorelli <manuel.fiorelli@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Moreover, if we allow ontolex:languageUri to represent any language
>> beyond the scope of the ISO repertory, then we could not have any language
>> tag to use.
>>
> Is there a problem here? I want to write my Dothraki lexicon, I should be
> able to state its language.
>
>>
My concern was about the fact that sometimes your written representation
has a language tag, while other times writtenRepresentaion has not a
language tag (PS. I do think that there is a kind of reserved extension for
out-of-registry tags, but I want relay on such feature).

Should we avoid language tags altogether, and instead rely on the use of
>> ontolex:language for each lexical form?
>>
>> One interesting features of BCP 47 is the ability to represent country
>> variations, such as en-GB or en-US. I suspect that ISO 639-{1,3} codes do
>> not allow to represent these variations. Do we care about?
>>
> While, individual representations of forms can have subtypes, the lexicon
> should represent a language not a dialect. That is en-GB and en-US should
> both be in the lexicon (and in fact both should be the same lexical entry,
> e.g., "color" vs "colour"), similarly for script variation and other parts
> of BCP 47.
>

OK. I got the point :-D


>  Furthermore, concerning the existence of two related properties, I
>> wonder whether they are formally related or not. For instance, can they be
>> used together, or are they mutually exclusive?
>>
> Sure, of course if a lexicon has languageURI=lexvo:eng then it should have
> language="en"... but it may be difficult to encode this in OWL. We could of
> course also use properties such as lvont:iso639P1code and say language =
> languageURI o lvont:iso639P1code but I'm not sure if this is a but out of
> the scope of the group.
>

I do agree with you that such assumptions are difficult (or impossible) to
encode in OWL. This was the reason of my problem with having two
properties.

-- 
Manuel Fiorelli