- From: Phillips, Addison <addison@amazon.com>
- Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 12:12:11 -0700
- To: Alistair Miles <alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- CC: "public-swd-wg@w3.org" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, "'Ralph R. Swick'" <swick@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, "'Felix Sasaki'" <fsasaki@w3.org>
As noted in my previous email, I18N Core WG endorses both Richard's comments and your proposed resolution. Thank you, Addison (for I18N Core) Addison Phillips Globalization Architect -- Lab126 Chair -- W3C Internationalization WG Internationalization is not a feature. It is an architecture. > -----Original Message----- > From: public-i18n-core-request@w3.org [mailto:public-i18n-core- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Alistair Miles > Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 11:47 AM > To: Richard Ishida > Cc: public-swd-wg@w3.org; 'Ralph R. Swick'; public-i18n-core@w3.org; > 'Felix Sasaki' > Subject: Re: Request for feedback on SKOS Last Call Working Draft > > Hi Richard, > > I have published a new revision of the SKOS Reference Editors' > Draft: > > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20081001/ (revision > 1.86) > > In this revision are editorial changes as per your suggestions > below. > > Many thanks, > > Alistair > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 06:36:33PM -0000, Richard Ishida wrote: > > Small editorial comments: > > > > Btw, I also think you should change "in a given natural language, > such as English or Japanese Hiragana." to read "in a given natural > language, such as English or Japanese (written here in hiragana)." > (The language of ja-hira is still just Japanese, even though the > tag also indicates that it is written using hiragana.) > > > > Also, very minor nit, I don't think you need to titlecase Kanji, > Hiragana, etc in 5.6.5. > > > > RI > > > > ============ > > Richard Ishida > > Internationalization Lead > > W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) > > > > http://www.w3.org/International/ > > http://rishida.net/ > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: public-i18n-core-request@w3.org [mailto:public-i18n-core- > > > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Richard Ishida > > > Sent: 10 March 2009 18:16 > > > To: 'Alistair Miles' > > > Cc: public-swd-wg@w3.org; 'Ralph R. Swick'; public-i18n- > core@w3.org; 'Felix > > > Sasaki' > > > Subject: RE: Request for feedback on SKOS Last Call Working > Draft > > > > > > Alistair, > > > > > > Thanks for this reply. Sorry it has taken me so long to find > time to reply, > > > though I have been following the discussion with Addison. > > > > > > I understand better the position now, and the Japanese example > you cited > > > was quite helpful. > > > > > > Having said that, I needed your explanation to clarify that, > and I think that > > > other people are also inclined to see a usage in a spec and > assume that that > > > is an example of best practice. So I would really like to see > a condensed > > > statement of what you say below, as a warning. How about > following on > > > from the sentence at the end of 5.1 as follows: > > > > > > "See the SKOS Primer for more examples of labeling SKOS > concepts. Note > > > that the labeling shown in these examples does not necessarily > indicate best > > > practice. The SKOS Reference tries to establish a general > framework that is > > > applicable across a range of situations, which may then be > refined and/or > > > constrained by usage conventions for more specific situations. > Application > > > and language-specific usage conventions are out of scope for > the SKOS > > > Reference." > > > > > > Cheers, > > > RI > > > > > > ============ > > > Richard Ishida > > > Internationalization Lead > > > W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) > > > > > > http://www.w3.org/International/ > > > http://rishida.net/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Alistair Miles [mailto:alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk] > > > > Sent: 26 February 2009 11:33 > > > > To: Richard Ishida > > > > Cc: public-swd-wg@w3.org; 'Ralph R. Swick'; public-i18n- > core@w3.org; > > > 'Felix > > > > Sasaki' > > > > Subject: Re: Request for feedback on SKOS Last Call Working > Draft > > > > > > > > Dear Richard, > > > > > > > > Some comments on specific points of your discussion inline > below... > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 06:50:53PM -0000, Richard Ishida > wrote: > > > > > > From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org] > > > > > > Sent: 03 February 2009 02:24 > > > > > > To: Richard Ishida > > > > > > Cc: public-swd-wg@w3.org; 'Ralph R. Swick'; public-i18n- > core@w3.org > > > > > > Subject: Re: Request for feedback on SKOS Last Call > Working Draft > > > > > > > > > > > > Richard Ishida さんは書きました: > > > > > > > I agree that using the word 'language' to describe > every different > > > > language > > > > > > tag, including en-GB and en-US and en, doesn't sound > right. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have another question too. In example 11 we see > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <AnotherResource> > > > > > > > skos:prefLabel "東"@ja-Hani ; > > > > > > > skos:prefLabel "ひがし"@ja-Hira ; > > > > > > > skos:altLabel "あずま"@ja-Hira ; > > > > > > > skos:prefLabel "ヒガシ"@ja-Kana ; > > > > > > > skos:altLabel "アズマ"@ja-Kana ; > > > > > > > skos:prefLabel "higashi"@ja-Latn ; > > > > > > > skos:altLabel "azuma"@ja-Latn . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here there are four prefLabels associated with the same > word in > > > > Japanese > > > > > > (just spelled in four different ways). From a semantic > point of view, I'm > > > > not > > > > > > sure that this makes sense, and I would have expected the > kana and > > > > romaji > > > > > > versions to be altLabels. What is the value of having > more than one > > > > prefLabel > > > > > > for a given language when the word being used is exactly > the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > From http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/#secpref > > > > > > "RDF plain literals are formally defined as character > strings with > > > > > > optional language tags [RDF-CONCEPTS]. SKOS thereby > enables a > > > > simple > > > > > > form of multilingual labelling. " > > > > > > > > > > Right. But I don't think that addresses my question. If > you use the word > > > > language in my question to refer to a natural language, such > as in this case > > > > Japanese, my question still stands: What is the value of > having more than > > > one > > > > prefLabel for a given language, albeit with different > spellings, when the > > > word > > > > being used is exactly the same? > > > > > > > > A typical use case would be adapting a user interface to a > user's > > > > locale. For example, if you consider en-GB vs. en-US, it > makes sense > > > > to provide a prefLabel in both en-GB and en-US, so that a UI > could > > > > choose the preferred label for a concept depending on the > user's > > > > locale. > > > > > > > > So in the general case, I think it makes sense to provide > more than > > > > one preferred label with the same primary language subtag > (e.g. "en") > > > > but with different script and/or regions subtags. I.e. in > principle, I > > > > don't see anything fundamentally wrong with the possibility > to provide > > > > multiple prefLabels with the same primary language subtag. Do > you > > > > agree? > > > > > > > > This is the immediage issue for the WG. The SKOS Reference > tries to > > > > establish a general framework that is applicable across a > range of > > > > situations, which may then be refined and/or constrained by > usage > > > > conventions for more specific situations. > > > > > > > > I.e. For specific applications, it may not make sense to > provide more > > > > than one prefLabel for a given primary language subtag, as > you > > > > suggest. This would then constitute an application-, > community- or > > > > language-specific usage convention, which is perfectly > reasonable, but > > > > which is out of scope for the SKOS reference. > > > > > > > > For example, I understand from discussions with Shigeo > Sugimoto and > > > > Mitsuharu Nagamori of the University of Tsukuba, who have > worked on a > > > > SKOS representation of the Japanese National Diet Library > Subject > > > > Headings (NDLSH), that the typical requirement for rendering > the NDLSH > > > > for a Japanese user is to display both the Kanji and the Yomi > > > > transcription for each label (see e.g. attachment to [1]). > Their > > > > solution, I believe, is to provide prefLabels in both Kanji > and Yomi, > > > > and then to use a custom extension to SKOS to explicitly link > each > > > > Kanji label to its Yomi transcription so the labels may be > associated > > > > in the display. > > > > > > > > So based on their work, I understood that there is nothing > > > > fundamentally wrong with example 11 in the SKOS Reference [2], > which > > > > serves to convey the general principle that multiple > preferred labels > > > > *may* be given with script or region variations on a common > primary > > > > subtag. > > > > > > > > You might consider that, for a specific use cases, it is more > > > > appropriate to provide a single prefLabel with the "ja" > primary > > > > subtag, and to provide all script- or region-specific labels > as > > > > altLabels, however this would be an application and language- > specific > > > > usage convention, which is out of scope for the SKOS > Reference, and > > > > which needs to be established within the relevant community > of > > > > practice. > > > > > > > > Does this make sense? > > > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > > > Alistair > > > > > > > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw- > thes/2007Mar/0015.html > > > > [2] > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20081001/#labels > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suppose I could see the use of contrasting "東"@ja > with > > > "higashi"@ja- > > > > Latn > > > > > > so that non-Japanese people could state a preference to > see the > > > > transcribed > > > > > > form of the Japanese word (though from a semantic point > of view, > > > > > > presumably skos:prefLabel "East"@en would be better?). > But maybe > > > this > > > > is > > > > > > idiosynchratic to Japanese, since for Japanese people the > hiragana > > > and > > > > > > katakana transcriptions are usually just alternatives to > the kanji version. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Correct, but a multilingual system may be used by non- > Japanese > > > persons, > > > > > > e.g. learning Japanese, who rely on "higashi"@ja-Latn. > You could argue > > > > > > if multilingual fits to Japanese written with latin > script versus > > > > > > Japanese script, but I think we don't have to argue ... > > > > > > > > > > But isn't the meaning what's important here? Why would a > non-Japanese > > > > person use higashi rather than East? That would only be of > use to a > > > person > > > > who happens to speak Japanese but not write it, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > On a slightly different tack, what's the advice wrt > when one should > > > use, > > > > eg., > > > > > > en-GB / en-US / en? > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you asking about preferred, alternative or hidden > lexical labels? > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would have thought that one should use en unless > there are > > > > divergent > > > > > > spellings (eg. colour vs color) or locutions (eg. lift vs > elevator), but > > > > example > > > > > > 19 shows > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "color"@en , "color"@en-US , "colour"@en-GB . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which seems to present two problems: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe these sections > > > > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/#secpref > > > > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/#secalt > > > > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/#sechidden > > > > > > explain the problems, and the difference between the > three labels? > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] it requires a lot more annotation than strictly > necessary, since > > > > > > applications using this data ought to be able to tell > that "color"@en is > > > > > > appropriate for en-US in the absence of a specific > "color"@en-US > > > label > > > > (three > > > > > > is already doubly redundant here, but there are more > varieties of > > > English > > > > > > than this, eg. en-AU,en-IR, etc....) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2] without this matching capability, you could end up > with > > > unnecessary > > > > > > gaps in the data (for example, what about a search > originating from > > > an > > > > en- > > > > > > AU context? > > > > > > > > > > > > Note that the role of labels can be very different. From > > > > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/#seclabel > > > > > > "Each property implies a specific status for the label it > introduces, > > > > > > ranging from a strong, univocal denotation relationship, > to a string to > > > > > > aid in lookup. " > > > > > > So matching is not necessarily an application for a label. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I had already read those sections, but the difference > between the > > > > labels doesn't seem to be directly related to my question. > Example 19 in > > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-skos-reference-20080829/ relates > to a > > > > *single* type of label afaict. Perhaps it would help for me > to first focus > > > > attention specifically on the part of the example that says > "color"@en , > > > > "color"@en-US. Why is it necessary to have "color"@en-US > when you > > > already > > > > have "color"@en, which is indistinguishable in meaning and > spelling? Is it in > > > > fact necessary, or just an error in the example, or just > something that may > > > > happen? > > > > > > > > > > Next, lets look at "color"@en-US , "colour"@en-GB. This > question is > > > about > > > > the use of language tags for dialects. Is it necessary to add > "colour"@en- > > > AU > > > > etc, or is the intent here just to capture an alternative > spelling and label it > > > with > > > > something reasonably intelligent but different from 'color', > with the > > > > assumption that labelling it as en-GB will be sufficient for > Australians to find > > > > and use it? Or does one have to systematically apply labels > with all the > > > > possible variations to support the likely 'user' environments? > (I'm hoping > > > not.) > > > > > > > > > > What I'm getting at here, is that I think a search for an > English term > > > should > > > > not fail if there is an @en label only but the search is done > from an @en- > > > GB > > > > source, and vice versa; and that having both @en and @en-US > seems > > > > redundant and wasteful. I'm probing to understand the role > and > > > application > > > > of matching of language tags in SKOS, since it wasn't clear > to me from > > > what I > > > > had read. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Felix > > > > > > > > > > > > > As it stands, the implication seems to be that it > wouldn't match this > > > > > > perfectly adequate literal). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would have expected that processing tools should > recognise that a > > > > search > > > > > > originated from an en-GB context also matches en in the > absence of > > > > > > alternatives with longer subtags. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is another small issue here related to the > "colour"@en > > > > declaration. > > > > > > Why is the American spelling used for en? What would > happen if the > > > > English > > > > > > spelling were used in some places? Is there a stated > policy that en = > > > US > > > > > > English? > > > > > > > > > > These questions remain unanswered. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RI > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > RI > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============ > > > > > > > Richard Ishida > > > > > > > Internationalization Lead > > > > > > > W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.w3.org/International/ > > > > > > > http://rishida.net/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > > >> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org] > > > > > > >> Sent: 24 January 2009 08:19 > > > > > > >> To: Ralph R. Swick > > > > > > >> Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org; chairs@w3.org; > ishida@w3.org; > > > public- > > > > swd- > > > > > > >> wg@w3.org > > > > > > >> Subject: Re: Request for feedback on SKOS Last Call > Working Draft > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I looked at this briefly and have a personal, > editorial comment. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> You write for example in sec. 5 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> "The following graph is consistent, and illustrates > the provision of > > > > > > >> lexical labels in four different languages (Japanese > Kanji, Japanese > > > > > > >> Hiragana, Japanese Katakana and Japanese Rōmaji)." > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I would rather say > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> "The following graph is consistent, and illustrates > the provision of > > > > > > >> lexical labels in four different variations (Japanese > written with > > > > > > >> Kanji, the Hiragana script, the Katakana script or > with latin > > > characters > > > > > > >> (Rōmaji))." > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Since all examples are Japanese and differ only with > regards to the > > > > > > >> script in use. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I think this concerns sec. 5.1 ("Japanese Hiragana"), > 5.4, and 5.5. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Regards, Felix > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Ralph R. Swick さんは書きました: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> Dear I18N Core Working Group (and other interested > Chairs), > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> The Semantic Web Deployment Working Group requests > any > > > > feedback > > > > > > >>> you may have on the Simple Knowledge Organization > System > > > > (SKOS) > > > > > > >>> Vocabulary Reference specification [1]. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-skos-reference- > 20080829/ > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> This document was published as a W3C Last Call > Working Draft > > > > > > >>> on 29 August 2008 [2]. The SemWeb Deployment Working > Group > > > > > > >>> requested CR transition on 7 January 2009 [3]. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> [2] http://www.w3.org/News/2008#item148 > > > > > > >>> [3] > > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2009JanMar/0000.html > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> It appears that due to an oversight there was not an > explicit > > > notice > > > > > > >>> to chairs@w3.org of the Last Call publication. > Therefore we > > > cannot > > > > > > >>> be assured that you had the necessary notice should > you have > > > > > > >>> planned to do an I18N review of this document. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> The most likely subject matter for I18N consideration > is the > > > > > > >>> SKOS lexical labelling properties [4]. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-skos-reference- > > > > 20080829/#L2831 > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> On behalf of the Semantic Web Deployment Working > Group, > > > > > > >>> I request that you to consider whether you wish to > offer any > > > > > > >>> comments on the SKOS Reference Last Call Working > Draft > > > > > > >>> and to let us know an approximate schedule should you > wish > > > > > > >>> to send comments. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Thank you, > > > > > > >>> Ralph Swick > > > > > > >>> SemWeb Deployment WG Team Contact > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Alistair Miles > > > > Senior Computing Officer > > > > Image Bioinformatics Research Group > > > > Department of Zoology > > > > The Tinbergen Building > > > > University of Oxford > > > > South Parks Road > > > > Oxford > > > > OX1 3PS > > > > United Kingdom > > > > Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman > > > > Email: alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk > > > > Tel: +44 (0)1865 281993 > > > > > > -- > Alistair Miles > Senior Computing Officer > Image Bioinformatics Research Group > Department of Zoology > The Tinbergen Building > University of Oxford > South Parks Road > Oxford > OX1 3PS > United Kingdom > Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman > Email: alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk > Tel: +44 (0)1865 281993
Received on Saturday, 14 March 2009 19:12:55 UTC