Bernard Vatant
Mondeca
3, cité
Nollez 75018 Paris
Tel. +33 (0) 871 488 459
Mail:
bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
Web: www.mondeca.com
Blog : universimmedia.blogspot.com
* Alistair Miles <a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk> [2006-02-08 16:20+0000]Hi Dan, On second thoughts I agree, let's not remove english annotations from the main RDF description. A link to the english annotations only is already in place: http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core_enConsensus-tastic :) (would be interested in Jeremy and other's take on this though...) DanCheers, Al. Dan Brickley wrote:* Alistair Miles <a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk> [2006-02-03 14:45+0000]Hi all, Following one of Jeremy's suggestions at [1], I'd like to propose we factor all English annotations out of the main RDF description of the SKOS Core Vocabulary and into a separate resource, as is currently the case for all annotations in other languages. Jeremy's reasons: - yes english is the default language in W3C<flamebait> And the world... </flamebait> (Especially the technology world)- but also yes the english labels should be accessible using the same mechanisms as any other supported language. This will allow tools to not have to special case for english.I 100% agree that the English labels should be accessible by a mechanism identical to the other language. But for the time being, I suggest it would be counter productive to hide the English text>from tools. I don't know of any RDF or OWL tools that will go chasingaround rdfs:seeAlso links (sadly) when reading a vocabulary description. I wish they did, ... but they way to achieve that imho is by patches to opensource tools like Protege, rather than by removing triples and hoping that folks notice and write the code to go find where the triples are now hiding.This change would mean removing all statements matching the triple patterns: - (?x rdfs:label ?y) - (?x rdfs:comment ?y) - (?x skos:definition ?y) ... from the main RDF description of the SKOS Core Vocabulary, and into a resource named: http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core_en+1 on adding the triples to core_en -1 on removing them from the main descriptionThis change would also mean adding the following triple to the main RDF description of the SKOS Core Vocabulary: { <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core> rdfs:seeAlso <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core_en>. }+1 on the rdfs:seeAlsoAny objections to raising this proposal?Yup sorry. If this new idiom / deployment style is going to get traction, it would need to be adopted by a few major vocabs. I don't think going it alone 1st with SKOS is of any great value, and will only cause annoyance amongst puzzled users. Here's another argument: the English version of the SKOS definitions really *is* privileged, because it is the primary version agreed on by the community, and the others are (perhaps lossily, fallibly) derrive from it. Ideally this could be represented explicitly in RDF, and the English language text be managed as you suggest. But for now, nobody works that way. A vocab created and documented primarily in Japanese might make a similar choice, but privilege the Japanese translations. I don't mean to suggest that the 'default' text should always be English, and I'm always delighted to find schemas documented in other languages... DanCheers, Al. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Nov/0082.html -- Alistair Miles Research Associate CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Building R1 Room 1.60 Fermi Avenue Chilton Didcot Oxfordshire OX11 0QX United Kingdom Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440-- Alistair Miles Research Associate CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Building R1 Room 1.60 Fermi Avenue Chilton Didcot Oxfordshire OX11 0QX United Kingdom Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440