Re: GitHub issues vs. mailing list

Hi all,

So, I’ll put here my answers:

lime:language and dct:language are not entirely interchangeable, as the first one is defined as a DataProperty and the other as a Property.

In DBnary, I use lime:language with a string value which is the iso language code (as it is defined as a data property).

But as I wanted it to be possible to further expand on knowledge about languages themselves (maybe through a SPARQL (federated) query), I also added dct:language which links to lexvo ontology (uses a lexvo language URI). Indeed, dct:language recommended practice is to use either a non-literal value representing a language from a controlled vocabulary such as ISO 639-2 or ISO 639-3, or a literal value consisting of an IETF Best Current Practice 47 [IETF-BCP47 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47>] language tag.

See an example at http://kaiko.getalp.org/dbnary/eng/language__Noun__1 <http://kaiko.getalp.org/dbnary/eng/language__Noun__1>
Note: the DCAT spec forces the use of ISO636_1 or ISO636_2 IRIs as dct:language range, so it will eventually become a good practice.


So, my preference would be to go to dct:language only and document it correctly.

If this route is chosen, I'd also advocate for the deprecation/removal of lime:language in a next version of LIME in favour of dct:language.

However, in cases of mixed usage (ISO code as a string or as an URI), we need to validate that both values could be used without implying automatically that the entry is "multilingual" (dct:language is not functional as resources may be associated to different languages).

So basically, I agree both with Christian and Fahad...

Regards,

Gilles,

> On 11 Jun 2023, at 09:11, Christian Chiarcos <christian.chiarcos@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Fahad, dear all,
> 
> we had this discussion before, what to discuss where. Personally, I think that "real" discussions are better placed on the mailing list, but that summary or consensus should also go into a GitHub issue -- if that exists --, so they are more findable. We could also do it the other way around, but with summaries on GitHub, past issue discussions will be much more concise, and much more digestible for future OntoLex contributors and users.
> 
> For the case at hand: Maybe let's wait for another week for people to make up their mind, and if we arrive at a tentative consensus by then, we can reply to the issue and summarize which possibility is preferred by the community (and what we mean by "preferred by the community").
> 
> All the best,
> Christian
> 
> Am Sa., 10. Juni 2023 um 19:24 Uhr schrieb Fahad Khan <fahad.khan@ilc.cnr.it <mailto:fahad.khan@ilc.cnr.it>>:
> Dear all, 
> I don't know if we're supposed to respond here or on github but I definitely agree with Christian's least invasive proposal of using dct:language (with the intention of resolving the dct:language, lime:language ambiguity of the whole document in later versions). In addition one of the examples which uses dct:language in the report (the bank example in Section 3.3) has a slight error, it uses the namespace odct instead of dct. 
> Cheers
> Fahad
> 
> Il giorno sab 10 giu 2023 alle ore 02:41 Christian Chiarcos <christian.chiarcos@gmail.com <mailto:christian.chiarcos@gmail.com>> ha scritto:
> Dear OntoLex community,
> 
> in a discussion with Manuel Fiorelli, we recently spotted an issue with the core diagram, in that it seems to suggest a property "ontolex:language" where the text uses "dct:language" (core section) and "lime:language"/"dct:language" (lime section), instead.
> 
> Details under https://github.com/ontolex/ontolex/issues/37 <https://github.com/ontolex/ontolex/issues/37>.
> 
> The least invasive fix is to replace "language" in the diagram with the correct properties. My preference on that is to use "dct:language" (as in the examples in core section). Alternatively, we might give both "dct:language" and "lime:language" (I'd find that confusing for a first-time user) or "lime:language" only (this contradicts examples in core ... unless these are fixed). 
> 
> As there are three options, people in the community might want to discuss. My preference is to use `dct:language` here, only, because it doesn't require other changes in the text and doesn't confuse first-time users.
> 
> Best,
> Christian