Re: Translations for schema.org?

Guys,

Let's have some peace.

I'm sure nobody meant any disrespect.

Cheers,
Hans.

On November 10, 2021 12:49:24 AM GMT+01:00, dan.btown@hotmail.de wrote:
>
>
>
>
>Am 09.11.21 um 22:57 schrieb Dan Brickley:
>>
>> What did you expect me to say? "You're right, let's translate 2400 schema
>> definitions into attempto without evaluating how well it works first"?>
>
>Well, since you ask me, I will answer.
>
>If you'd rather not want to read about what's expected, don't ask next
>time. :)
>
>
>I expect you to give suggestions on this mailing list enough
>consideration so as not to grab the most obvious non-point to make,
>which is to answer:
>
>> The audience for aircraft service manuals may be relevantly
>> different to our audiences.
>
>Obviously, neither Ericsson nor Kodak nor Alcatel build jetfighters, yet
>they employ controlled language frameworks to keep their documentation
>and translation load at bay.
>
>
>If you think this is still not close enough to the audience of
>Schema.org, may be the audience of
>"Semantics_of_Business_Vocabulary_and_Business_Rules" by the Object
>Management Group is:
>
>*
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics_of_Business_Vocabulary_and_Business_Rules
>
>
>
>Not close enough to the audience of Schema.org?
>
>Maybe Common Logic (ISO/IEC 24707:2007):
>
>* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Logic
>
>
>Also not close enough to the audience of Schema.org?
>
>Honestly, I do not intend to insult anyone, but I'm not convinced yet
>that we, the audience of Schema.org, are that exquisit.
>
>
>> I'd publish schemas in Toki Pona or Unkleftish Beholding if there was
>> general consensus it was an improvement on our current use of English.
>> But seriously there are so many ways we could improve on things,
>> including work on https://schema.org/docs/styleguide.html )
>
>Oh dude, aren't we funny? Let's throw the names of two exotic language
>concepts at a serious argument! May be this will silence the guy and buy
>me the hearts of the audience?
>
>
>You ask me what I expect of you?
>
>Not that, actually, and you know that.
>
>I expect of you, if not for any other reason than at least because you
>are here for Google, that you come up with something other than this
>kind of trick.
>
>
>> Let's see how it looks in practice?>
>> [...]
>
>Thank you for the quote; I am familiar with the style of definitions
>used in the Schema.org vocabulary, because sometimes I have to spent
>hours and hours to find my way around, though I am a reader who is
>really not faint of heart. Often enough, I will consult with colleagues
>who publish scientific papers in machine learning to contemplate on the
>wonders and secrets.
>
>
>No doubt, 2.400 schema definitions are a lot to formalize.
>
>I am sure you are aware of both of the concepts of User Stories and Use
>Cases as well as the concept of Continuous Integration.
>
>
>Ad 1 -- The examples contained in many of the Schema definitions are not
>so different from User Stories and Use Cases.
>
>That can be formalized in a controlled language, besides the usual
>"don't do this, instead do that" and "if yes, then no".
>
>
>Ad 2 -- 2.400 schema definitions in "soft style" (that is, unformalized)
>is a big Technical Dept, no doubt about that.
>
>Let's start to slow the growth of that dept with a good perspective to
>reverse it at some time not so far in the future by replacing one soft
>schema definition after another by a formalized definition.
>
>An obvious precedence order recommends itself: Start at the top of the
>schema hierarchy and on every following level below, go on with the
>schema definition which has the most children, an so on. Multiple
>inheritance is not in the way of this concept.
>
>In this manner, continuously replace soft definitions by formalized
>definitions.
>
>Note that formalized definitions can still express "softness" or
>"vagueness".
>
>
>Formalizing definitions by means of a controlled language does not mean
>to throw OWL at the text of the definitions. That's knowledge
>representation.
>
>Rather, employing a controlled language in the text of schema
>definitions essentially means two things:
>
>
>a -- Restrict the grammar and the vocabulary (that is: the set of words)
>used in the natural language descriptions in such a way that they can be
>marked up more or less automatically. This is essentially the bread and
>butter of controlled natural languages.
>
>Here's a motivational example:
>
>If you think it's helpful and easy for Google to parse tables from
>websites and from Wikipedia, than the use of controlled natural language
>is necessarily helpful and easy, too, because the relationship between
>the table concept and the controlled natural language concept is exactly
>the same relationship as between Decision Tables and Decision Trees,
>which is to say the concepts are semantically congruent (= interchangeable).
>
>
>b -- Produce natural, but controlled language definitions from formal
>definitions already available in the Schema.org vocabulary (e.g., the
>prefered, but not strict, inheritance links).
>
>
>What you get, besides the necessary structure to automatically create
>natural language descriptions and translations (!), is presumably a
>metacircular definition of the Schema.org vocabulary.
>
>You think you don't need this? There's already a small degree of
>metacircular definitions in the Schema.org vocabulary. Growing it will
>help to clean up and to stay up to date.
>
>
>Btw, 2.400 schemas make a nice start for a Semantic Wiki, maybe with
>fuzzy links.
>
>
>Having said all that, I still admit the possibility that controlled
>natural language might not be the way to go in this matter.
>
>There may be good reasons not to go this way, though currently none
>springs to my mind. :)
>
>But, really, dear Dan:
>
>"Our audience doesn't build aircraft" and "Aren't Toki Pona and
>Unkleftish Beholding two funny names?" are not among the good reasons
>not to, for sure.
>
>
>By the way, do you know the novel "A Void" by Georges Perec?
>
>* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Void
>
>It's a strongly recommended read for all people who can type "Toki Pona"
>and "Unkleftish Beholding". :)
>
>
>Bests
>
>-- Dan
>
>
>
>
>Am 09.11.21 um 22:57 schrieb Dan Brickley:
>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 at 21:13, <dan.btown@hotmail.de> wrote
>> 
>>>
>>> Am 09.11.21 um 21:16 schrieb Dan Brickley:
>>>> with regard to controlled English and simple English variants I think
>>>> they are great as inspirations but it isn't clear that they'll
>>> necessarily
>>>> be a usability improvement. We could make some experiments though!
>>>
>>> You are saying that a field with 25 to 45 years of research and practice
>>> which, among other things, produces thousands and thousands of pages of
>>> safety-relevant service manuals for aircrafts, and which provides
>>> companies like IBM, Ericsson, Siemens, Caterpillar, General Motors, Océ,
>>> Scania, Dassault, Xerox, Sun, Nortel, Kodak, and Alcatel, to name only a
>>> few, with formally well rooted frameworks for documentation and
>>> translation thereof is "great as inspiration, but not clear that [it]
>>> will necessarily be a usability improvement", the latter of which is one
>>> of their reasons-of-being?
>>>
>> 
>> What did you expect me to say? "You're right, let's translate 2400 schema
>> definitions into attempto without evaluating how well it works first"?
>> 
>> The audience for aircraft service manuals may be relevantly different to
>> our audiences.
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempto_Controlled_English is very
>> interesting, but it seems to be attempting something grander than other
>> simple English's in terms of regimented structure, rather than simply a
>> restricted vocabulary.
>> 
>> It reminds me a little of Metalog,
>> https://www.w3.org/TandS/QL/QL98/pp/metalog.html
>> 
>> I'd publish schemas in Toki Pona or Unkleftish Beholding if there was
>> general consensus it was an improvement on our current use of English. But
>> seriously there are so many ways we could improve on things, including work
>> on https://schema.org/docs/styleguide.html )
>> 
>> Let's see how it looks in practice?
>> 
>> Care to translate e.g. /ClaimReview "A fact-checking review of claims made
>> (or reported) in some creative work (referenced via itemReviewed)."
>> 
>> Or https://schema.org/OpinionNewsArticle "An OpinionNewsArticle
>> <https://schema.org/OpinionNewsArticle> is a NewsArticle
>> <https://schema.org/NewsArticle> that primarily expresses opinions rather
>> than journalistic reporting of news and events. For example, a NewsArticle
>> <https://schema.org/NewsArticle> consisting of a column or Blog
>> <https://schema.org/Blog>/BlogPosting <https://schema.org/BlogPosting> entry
>> in the Opinions section of a news publication."
>> 
>> https://schema.org/Offer "An offer to transfer some rights to an item or to
>> provide a service — for example, an offer to sell tickets to an event, to
>> rent the DVD of a movie, to stream a TV show over the internet, to repair a
>> motorcycle, or to loan a book.
>> 
>> Note: As the businessFunction <https://schema.org/businessFunction> property,
>> which identifies the form of offer (e.g. sell, lease, repair, dispose),
>> defaults to http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#Sell; an Offer without a
>> defined businessFunction value can be assumed to be an offer to sell.
>> 
>> For GTIN <http://www.gs1.org/barcodes/technical/idkeys/gtin>-related
>> fields, see Check Digit calculator
>> <http://www.gs1.org/barcodes/support/check_digit_calculator> and validation
>> guide <http://www.gs1us.org/resources/standards/gtin-validation-guide> from
>> GS1 <http://www.gs1.org/>."
>> 
>> Dan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Okay.
>>>
>>> Not so bad you noticed.
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Dan
>>>
>>>
>> 
>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.