RE: [Ltru] RE: [Fwd: Language Ontology]

LTRU WG co-chair hat and W3C Internationalization IG chair hats on:

David, Debbie (and everybody else, of course, too):
    Please refrain from any kinds of personal accusations and attacks.


LTRU WG co-chair hat on:

Everybody, please don't cross-post unrelated followups.
The LTRU WG mailing list serves the advancement of the LTRU charter.
Occasional announcements are okay, but when discussions shifts to
items unrelated to the actual WG work (in this case, administrative
languages of countries in ISO 3166), please make sure you remove
ltru@ietf.org from the To: or Cc:.


With kind regards,    Martin.


At 18:43 07/04/25, Debbie Garside wrote:
>"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"> 
>David
> 
>I will not respond to personal attacks in public or private or indeed enter into any further dialog with you where it is obvious that your motives are to discredit rather than to participate in this forum.  Do not misinterpret this response as being through a lack of knowledge of the subject matter.
> 
>That is my last word. I will respond to you no further. Please also desist from emailing me privately.
> 
>Debbie
>
>
>----------
>From: David Dalby [mailto:daviddalby@linguasphere.info] 
>Sent: 25 April 2007 10:08
>To: 'Debbie Garside'; 'Elisa F. Kendall'; 'Misha Wolf'
>Cc: 'WWW International'; 'Semantic web list'; Gauri.Salokhe@FAO.ORG; 'LTRU Working Group'
>Subject: RE: [Ltru] RE: [Fwd: Language Ontology]
>
>It is unfortunate that a business-person well-versed in ICT, in marketing techniques and in the workings of ISO, should make such an ungracious and ill-informed remark about the important standard ISO 3166-1.  Such a comment is particularly unhelpful in a field requiring international co-operation and linguistic precision, since it is made by a representative of the British Standards Institution and of the team in charge of the related ISO 639 standard.
>
> 
>
>The argument that incomplete data are $BEO(Bot good data$BG(Bis of course nonsense.  ISO 3166 has made an important step forward in making available for the first time standardised data on the administrative use of specific languages at the level of national states.  To propose the deletion of that data, on the basis of a single (ill-chosen) example, leads one to ponder the motives for such a proposal.  
>
> 
>
>I hope that this working group may be informed at once of all the other reasons which are prompting the UK to make such an extraordinary request, in the form of D.Garside$BCT(B proposed ISO NWIP (New Work Item Proposal).
>
> 
>
>At present, the only accusation (based on inadequate understanding of a complex situation) is that ISO 3166-1 $BET(Bhows only two Administrative Languages for India where there are at least twenty-two$BG(B  In fact, Hindi and English are the languages used for the federal administration of India (and are thus relevant to the listing of administrative languages in ISO 3166-1) whereas the many other official languages are used either at the level of individual states or union territories, or in communications between those individual states (or territories) and the central government (and will thus be relevant to the further listing of administrative languages in ISO 3166-2, covering sub-divisions of countries).   I hope that any member of the working group will correct me, if my summary of the Indian situation is itself too simplified.
>
> 
>
>David Dalby
>
> 
>
> _____________________________________________________
>
> 
>
>Dr David Dalby
>
>Director
>
> 
>
>L$BC0(Bbservatoire linguistique / The Linguasphere Observatory
>
>Hebron
>
>Whitland
>
>Wales
>
>SA34 0XT
>
>----------
>From: Debbie Garside [mailto:debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk] 
>Sent: 23 April 2007 23:55
>To: 'Elisa F. Kendall'; 'Misha Wolf'
>Cc: 'WWW International'; 'Semantic web list'; Gauri.Salokhe@FAO.ORG; 'LTRU Working Group'
>Subject: [Ltru] RE: [Fwd: Language Ontology]
>
> 
>
>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
>
><BLOCKED::http://www.geolang.com>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: <mailto:www-international-request@w3.org>www-international-request@w3.org [mailto:www-international-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Elisa F. Kendall
>Sent: 23 April 2007 17:32
>To: <mailto:Gauri.Salokhe@FAO.ORG>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>http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4646.txt 
>see also <http://www.w3.org/International/articles/language-tags/Overview.en.php>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)" <mailto:Gauri.Salokhe@FAO.ORG><Gauri.Salokhe@FAO.ORG>
>
>Date: 
>
>Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:28:39 +0200
>
>To: 
>
><mailto:DC-GENERAL@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>DC-GENERAL@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
>
> 
>
>To: 
>
><mailto:DC-GENERAL@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>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=>xml:lang="en" English
>
>              |_ rdfs:label <xml:lang=>xml:lang="es" Ingl$BqT(B
>
>              |_ rdfs:label <xml:lang=>xml:lang="it" Inglese
>
>              |_ rdfs:label <xml:lang=>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 <http://www.about.reuters.com>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 
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ltru mailing list
>Ltru@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru


#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp

Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2007 10:29:06 UTC