- From: Debbie Garside <md@ictenterprise.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 08:43:47 +0100
- To: "'Felix Sasaki'" <fsasaki@w3.org>, "'Elisa F. Kendall'" <ekendall@sandsoft.com>
- Cc: "'WWW International'" <www-international@w3.org>, "'Semantic web list'" <semantic-web@w3.org>, "'LTRU Working Group'" <ltru@ietf.org>
Felix wrote: > Debbie might expect that I point you to this: CLDR [1] > already has such as structure, and the structure is filled > with region (and other) names in many "locales". Indeed! :-) Debbie > -----Original Message----- > From: www-international-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-international-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Felix Sasaki > Sent: 24 April 2007 07:52 > To: Elisa F. Kendall > Cc: Debbie Garside; 'WWW International'; 'Semantic web list'; > 'LTRU Working Group' > Subject: Re: [Fwd: Language Ontology] > > > Hello Elisa, > > Elisa F. Kendall wrote: > > Hi Debbie, > > > > Thanks for the warning. We did know that it was > incomplete, but are > > interested in representations of place names in local languages, so > > having a structure for capturing this information, even if > incomplete, > > is useful. > > Debbie might expect that I point you to this: CLDR [1] > already has such as structure, and the structure is filled > with region (and other) names in many "locales". See an > excerpt of locale display names for English below: > > <ldml> > <identity> [...] <language type="en"/> > </identity> > <localeDisplayNames> > <languages> > <language type="de">German</language> [...] </languages> > <scripts> > <script type="Latn">Latin</script> [...] </scripts> > <territories> > <territory type="DE">Germany</territory> [...] > </territories> > <variants> > <variant type="1901">Traditional German > orthography</variant> > <variant type="1996">German orthography of > 1996</variant> [...] </variants> > </localeDisplayNames> > > you might want to see if this is useful for your efforts. > > Regards, Felix. > > [1] http://unicode.org/cldr/index.html > > > We're also looking at other government and research community > > resources to assist with both structure and content. If you have > > suggestions for references, that would be helpful. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Elisa > > > > Debbie Garside wrote: > >> Please be very careful with the use of the "Administrative > Language" > >> information from ISO 3166-1. It is incomplete and > therefore not good > >> data. > >> > >> For example, it shows only two "Administrative Languages" > for India > >> where there are at least twenty-two. I am hoping that this > >> information will be taken out of the standard in the near > future. I > >> am currently writing an ISO NWIP for a revision of ISO > 3166-1 which > >> will include a proposal for the deletion of this data. > >> > >> Best regards > >> > >> Debbie Garside > >> Editor ISO DIS 639-6 > >> www.geolang.com <http://www.geolang.com> > >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > >> *From:* www-international-request@w3.org > >> [mailto:www-international-request@w3.org] *On Behalf > Of *Elisa F. > >> Kendall > >> *Sent:* 23 April 2007 18:25 > >> *To:* Misha Wolf > >> *Cc:* Gauri.Salokhe@FAO.ORG; WWW International; Semantic web > >> list; LTRU Working Group > >> *Subject:* Re: [Fwd: Language Ontology] > >> > >> Hi Misha, > >> > >> We are very aware of it, and have been following the > work, but I > >> failed to mention it in the email. I should say that our > >> ontology was developed for offline use in an internal > system, as > >> an initial requirement. Having said that, if you look at the > >> RFCs, they only describe tags, not an RDF vocabulary or OWL > >> ontology. Our approach is compatible with the RFCs but adds > >> capabilities that support co-reference resolution, for example, > >> in target application. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Elisa > >> > >> Misha Wolf wrote: > >>> This sounds very worrying as you don't seem to be > aware of BCP 47. > >>> > >>> Misha > >>> > >>> > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > >>> *From:* www-international-request@w3.org > >>> [mailto:www-international-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Elisa > >>> F. Kendall > >>> *Sent:* 23 April 2007 17:32 > >>> *To:* Gauri.Salokhe@FAO.ORG > >>> *Cc:* 'WWW International'; Semantic web list > >>> *Subject:* Re: [Fwd: Language Ontology] > >>> > >>> Hi Gauri, > >>> > >>> We've done this for some of our government customers, using > >>> essentially the second approach you cite. We're also in the > >>> process of relating the ontology to another one we've built to > >>> represent ISO 3166, which includes the administrative > languages > >>> used by countries and non-sovereign territories > represented in > >>> that standard. > >>> > >>> If you can hang out for a few days, we (Sandpiper) are just > >>> finalizing a version that includes both ISO 639-1 and > 639-2. The > >>> approach is more of a hybrid of the two you present, based on > >>> customer needs. It includes a fragment of ISO 1087, and also > >>> some inverse relations since there is a one-to-one > >>> correspondence between languages and codes. We elected to > >>> create a 'Language' class, rather than > 'LanguageCode', which we > >>> reuse in other applications; classes for Alpha-2Code and > >>> Alpha-3Code are subclasses of CodeElement, from ISO 5127, with > >>> instances of these codes as first class individuals. We use > >>> literals (via datatype properties) to represent the set of > >>> English, French, and in the case of 639-1 Indigenous names. > >>> We've also created subclasses of Alpha-3Code to support > >>> distinctions between bibliographic and terminologic, > collective, > >>> and special identifiers, with individual and macrolanguages to > >>> support 639-3. A subsequent release will include all of the > >>> languages described in ISO 639-3, as well as additions to > >>> support at least some of the subtagging that Dan > mentions, fyi. > >>> Our intent is to publish it on a new portal that will become > >>> part of a new service offered by the Ontology PSIG in the OMG, > >>> since we've been asked to publish several ontologies in recent > >>> RFPs. I'll be happy to send our preliminary version when it's > >>> "baked and tested", and follow up with an announcement of the > >>> new portal (where a revision using OMG URIs will be > posted) once > >>> that's available. It may be a couple of months before we're > >>> ready to make that announcement, but we're hoping that the > >>> service will be useful to many of us in the Semantic > Web community. > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >>> Elisa > >>> > >>> Dan Brickley wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Forwarding from the Dublin Core list, in case folk here can > >>>> advise. > >>>> > >>>> Gauri, one thing I'd suggest as useful would be to take the > >>>> concepts implicit in RFC 4646, > >>>> > >>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4646.txt > >>>> see also > >>>> > >>>> > http://www.w3.org/International/articles/language-tags/Overview.en. > >>>> php > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ...and in particular the subtag mechanism, script, region, > >>>> variant etc. > >>>> > >>>> It would be great to have those expressed explicitly. > >>>> > >>>> cheers, > >>>> > >>>> Dan > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> ----- > >>>> > >>>> Subject: > >>>> Language Ontology > >>>> From: > >>>> "Salokhe, Gauri (KCEW)" <Gauri.Salokhe@FAO.ORG> > >>>> Date: > >>>> Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:28:39 +0200 > >>>> To: > >>>> DC-GENERAL@JISCMAIL.AC.UK > >>>> > >>>> To: > >>>> DC-GENERAL@JISCMAIL.AC.UK > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Dear All, > >>>> > >>>> We are working on creating Ontology for languages. > The need came up as we > >>>> tried to convert our XML metadata files into OWL. In > our metadata (XML) > >>>> records, we have three types of occurrences of > language information. > >>>> > >>>> <dc:language scheme="ags:ISO639-1">En</dc:language> > >>>> <dc:language scheme="dcterms:ISO639-2">eng</dc:language> > >>>> <dc:language>English</dc:language> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> We have two options for modelling the language ontology: > >>>> > >>>> 1) Create a class for each language, assign URI to > it and add all the other > >>>> lexical variations, ISO codes (create datatype > property) as follows: > >>>> > >>>> OWL:Thing > >>>> |_ Class:Language > >>>> |_ Instance:URI1 > >>>> |_ rdfs:label xml:lang="en" English > >>>> |_ rdfs:label xml:lang="es" Inglés > >>>> |_ rdfs:label xml:lang="it" Inglese > >>>> |_ rdfs:label xml:lang="fr" Anglais > >>>> |_ etc. > >>>> |_ property:hasISO639-1Code en (string) > >>>> |_ property:hasISO639-2Code eng (string) > >>>> |_ etc. > >>>> |_ Instance:URI2 > >>>> |_ Instance:URI3 > >>>> |_ Instance:URI4 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 2) Create Classes called Language and Language code > and make links between > >>>> instances of Language and Language Codes as follows: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> OWL:Thing > >>>> |_ Class:Language > >>>> |_ Instance:URI1 > >>>> |_ property:hasCode en (link to the > en instance of Class > >>>> ISO639-1 below) > >>>> |_ property:hasCode eng (link to the > eng instance of Class > >>>> ISO639-1 below) > >>>> > >>>> |_ Class:LanguageCode > >>>> |_ SubClass ISO639-1 > >>>> |_ Instance:en > >>>> |_ Instance:fr > >>>> |_ etc. > >>>> |_ SubClass ISO639-2 > >>>> |_ Instance:eng > >>>> |_ Instance:fra > >>>> |_ etc. > >>>> |_ etc. > >>>> > >>>> Does anyone have similar experience with modelling > in OWL? Any suggestions on > >>>> which model is better and (extensible)? Does an > ontology already exist that > >>>> we can reuse? > >>>> > >>>> Than you, > >>>> Gauri > >>>> > >>> > >>> This email was sent to you by Reuters, the global news and > >>> information company. > >>> To find out more about Reuters visit www.about.reuters.com > >>> > >>> Any views expressed in this message are those of the > individual > >>> sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be > >>> the views of Reuters Limited. > >>> > >>> Reuters Limited is part of the Reuters Group of companies, of > >>> which Reuters Group PLC is the ultimate parent > company. Reuters > >>> Group PLC - Registered office address: The Reuters Building, > >>> South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 5EP, United Kingdom > >>> Registered No: 3296375 > >>> Registered in England and Wales > >>> > > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2007 07:43:48 UTC