Re: progress on release of first specification of ontolex

> Am 06.11.2015 um 10:07 schrieb Gil Francopoulo <gil.francopoulo@wanadoo.fr>:
> 
> dear Laurent, Philippe and Felix,
> 
> I thought that we already decided to follow IETF BCP47, let's recall the talk with Felix and Philip on this list (it was last year, no ?).


Indeed, see
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ontolex/2014Feb/0012.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ontolex/2014Feb/0012.html>

- Felix


> 
> I'd like to add another point to Laurent's message:
> 
> IETF BCP 47 is a little bit more than 2 letters when they exist, 3 letters otherwise.
> 
> This is definitly true, but BCP 47 is a set of rules on how to combine ISO lists of codes.
> 
> For instance, when you want to express a language mark for English as used in the USA, you can combine a language code (always in lower-case, according to ISO) with a country code (always in upper-case, according to ISO) like this:       en-US.
> 
> To finish, if you just refer to ISO-639-1 or ISO-639-3, how do you do? You cannot express this.
> 
> Bonne journée,
> Gil
> 
> 
> 
> Le 05/11/2015 10:58, Laurent Romary a écrit :
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>