- From: Mark Davis <mark.davis@icu-project.org>
- Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 11:28:31 -0700
- To: "Christophe Strobbe" <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
- Cc: www-international@w3.org
- Message-ID: <30b660a20805061128y22786fb0k742b135f621fd188@mail.gmail.com>
I don't disagree with that; I was just talking about the general point that someone raised earlier. On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Christophe Strobbe < christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be> wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > At 16:47 6/05/2008, Mark Davis wrote: > > > I'd suspect the issue is not whether it is a translation (there are good > > and bad translations), but whether it is of the same quality. That is, often > > the non-main language material can be worse because > > * it is a bad translation, or > > * it is not kept up to date, or > > * it is not complete. > > > I understand the difference, but one has to start with something. > My point was that it is probably unnecessary to strain language-tagging > mechanisms for the identification of translations or original versions > because other metadata mechanisms are also available. > Neither language tagging nor Dublin Core metadata currently address the > (relative) quality of resources, unless I have overlooked something. > > Best regards, > > Christophe > > > On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 6:49 AM, Christophe Strobbe <<mailto: > > christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > At 17:16 28/04/2008, John Cowan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Asmus Freytag scripsit: > > > > > > > > > There are parts of the planets where it is common for people to > > command > > > > > more than one language. > > > > > > > > Most of it, indeed. > > > > > > > > > Of course, a meta tag that (reliably :-) ) described something as > > > > > 'translation', or conversely as 'official language version' would > > be > > > > > useful, too. > > > > > > > > This would be a good use case for a BCP 47 registered extension, > > > > something like 't-*' to report the translation status of a document. > > > > Off the top of my head, the obvious candidates would be t-original, > > > > t-authentic (for documents which are "equally authentic" in all > > language > > > > versions), t-polished, t-rough, and t-machine. > > > > > > > > > > Maybe this should be covered by Dublin Core metadata elements instead > > of > > > just "language tags". > > > "Using Dublin Core - The Elements" > > > <<http://dublincore.org/documents/usageguide/elements.shtml> > > http://dublincore.org/documents/usageguide/elements.shtml> has element > > > refinements (for the Relation element) such as "IsBasisFor" and > > "IsBasedOn", > > > which could be used for this. > > > > > > The "DCMI Government-Application Profile" > > > <<http://dublincore.org/groups/government/profile-200111.shtml> > > http://dublincore.org/groups/government/profile-200111.shtml> also lists > > > the following element refinements: > > > - isBasedOn: The resource is a performance, production, derivation, > > > translation, adaptation or interpretation of another resource. > > > - isBasisOf: The resource has a performance, production, derivation, > > > translation, adaptation or interpretation, namely, the referenced > > resource. > > > (Note that this document says "isBasisOf" instead of "isBasisFor"; I > > > haven't found more "authoritative"/up-to-date versions of these > > documents.) > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Christophe Strobbe > > > > -- > > Mark > > > > --- > Please don't invite me to LinkedIn, Facebook, Quechup or other "social > networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but I haven't. > > -- > Christophe Strobbe > K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD > Research Group on Document Architectures > Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442 > B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee > BELGIUM > tel: +32 16 32 85 51 > http://www.docarch.be/ > > Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm > > > -- Mark
Received on Tuesday, 6 May 2008 18:29:11 UTC