- From: Laurent Romary <laurent.romary@inria.fr>
- Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 10:58:32 +0100
- To: Gerard de Melo <gdemelo@mpi-inf.mpg.de>
- Cc: Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de>, public-ontolex@w3.org
Dear all, Would it make sense to follow the W3C recommendation for xml:lang, which is http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/bcp/bcp47.txt ? (2 letters when they exist, 3 letters otherwise) Bonne journée à tous, Laurent > Le 5 nov. 2015 à 10:49, Gerard de Melo <gdemelo@mpi-inf.mpg.de> a écrit : > > Hi Philipp, > > For Lexvo.org, you can either use 3-letter ISO 639-3 codes such as > > http://lexvo.org/id/iso639-3/eng > > or 2-letter ISO 639-1 codes such as > > http://lexvo.org/id/iso639-1/en > > Gerard > > > On 2015-11-5 17:03, Philipp Cimiano wrote: >> And one small thing: >> >> in many examples we use the dublin core terms property "language" to >> express language information. >> >> Sometimes we use "eng" and "en" as language identifier (local name) with >> respect to the LOC and LEXVO datasets. >> >> It seems to me that there are some mistakes here. >> >> It seems that LOC uses "eng" and LEXVO uses "en". >> >> For instance: >> >> http://www.lexvo.org/page/iso639-1/eng -> does not resolve property, while >> >> http://www.lexvo.org/page/iso639-1/en -> does resolve >> >> On the other hand: >> >> http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/iso639-2/en -> does not resolve, while >> >> http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/iso639-2/eng -> does resolve >> >> Thus, in all examples we should use: >> >> lexvo:en and loc:eng to indicate language information. >> >> A minor thing, but still... >> >> Greetings, >> >> Philipp. >> >> >> >> Am 05.11.15 um 09:38 schrieb Philipp Cimiano: >>> Dear all, >>> >>> apologies for my silence in the last weeks. I have been distracted by >>> many other things in October. Now I am working on the release of the >>> ontolex spec with high priority. I have worked through all the >>> normative sections of the specification. There are smaller issues that >>> I will clarify with the main stakeholders of these modules directly. >>> >>> It is now time to have a final check of the spec if you want. >>> >>> I am confident that I will finish the thorough check of the model in >>> the next few weeks. >>> >>> I will then give all the opportunity of doing a final check in the >>> first two weeks of December. >>> >>> We will then release the specification of the model this year. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Philipp. >>> >>> >> > Laurent Romary INRIA laurent.romary@inria.fr
Received on Friday, 6 November 2015 08:31:30 UTC