W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > July 2009

Re: [SKOS] Re: ISSUE-224 [was: Agenda - 2009-07-07 SWD telecon]

From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 13:35:37 -0400
To: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>
Cc: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20090707173537.GA700@ariel>
Dear all,

We discussed the I18N Core comment (below) on today's telecon
[1] and resolved the following:

   RESOLUTION: We (a) modify the example(s) in 6.5.4 to be
   syntactically conformant to BCP 47 and (b) offer to add a phrase
   such as "note that such use of private subtags to transmit data
   unrelated to language or language choice may violate BCP 47"
   contingent on Alistair and Sean's agreeing

Ideally either Sean or Alistair would formulate a phrase for
SKOS Reference on this list and for proposal to I18N Core.

We also discussed Issue 25 [2] - whether the abstract should say
"documented with various types of note" (as now) or "documented
with various types of notes".  I think we actually discussed
this at one point, and I vaguely recall agreeing with Sean that
"types of note" is okay but would not object if Sean prefers to
make the change.  Hence our resolution:

   RESOLUTION: Sean to decide on issue-225


[1] http://www.w3.org/2009/07/07-swd-minutes.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/225

On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:59:16AM -0400, Ralph Swick wrote:
> >>  2009-06-29. Addison Phillips on I18N issue
> >>>  -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Jun/0040.html
> >>
> >>
> >>Re. this issue, I can live with the option where we would recommend  
> >>to use pref and altLabels with literals that have no language tag.  
> >>Even though this is clearly less flexible (e.g. not being compatible  
> >>with the country code example).
> >
> >As I understand the comment, the problem is specifically with example  
> >22 rather than the use of language tags with pref and altLabel,
> That is the way I read the I18N Core WG comment as well.
> It should not be too difficult (nor require restarting Proposed Rec
> review) to alter the example, right?
> >>I also volunteer to start a discussion with the i18n people on  
> >>whether the use of private use tags is merely frowned upon, or if  
> >>they would still formally object if our examples were just made  
> >>compatible with the syntax for private use tags.
> >
> >That would be great -- thanks Antoine.
> I'm nervous about asking for approval :)
> They are very careful about their prose.  They specifically wrote
> "frowned upon" and not some stronger language and that's
> our loophole.  I believe this could be related to discussion we
> had at our May 2008 face-to-face [1] as well.
> I would recommend instead that we offer to (a) modify the
> example(s) to be syntactically conformant and (b) offer to add
> a phrase such as "note that such use of private subtags to
> transmit data unrelated to language or language choice may
> violate BCP 47".
> >>I indeed understand that syntactially wrong tags are to be avoided  
> >>in the rec. But if we make explicit that we're really not expecting  
> >>the use of private tags to be common, then maybe the i18n would be  
> >>happier on this specific point (which is different from the  
> >>syntactic validity, again).
> I don't think we're going to get them to admit that they're "happier"
> with us documenting a practice upon which they "frown" :)
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html

Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2009 17:36:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:57 UTC