Re: Additional i18n RDF last call comments

Dear RDF WG,

This serves to inform you that the I18N WG at its teleconference
today agreed to endorse as WG comments these comments I made as
personal comments earlier.

[for the minutes, please see
(members only!)]

At 07:53 03/11/07 -0500, Martin Duerst wrote:

>Dear RDF WG,
>These are additional internationalization-related comments that
>haven't been discussed by the I18N WG yet. Please accept them as
>personal comments. They may be confirmed as WG comments next week.
>primer, 2.1, first para: It may help translation to change
>'state this in English' to 'state this in a natural language
>such as English'.
>primer, fig. 3 and all related examples/discussion: Instead of
> should be used. There
>is no reason to use a made-up property when there is a well-
>defined property from a well-known vocabulary that is used
>in the same example.
>[btw, the description of this property currently reads:
> >>>>>>>>
><dc:description xml:lang="en-US">Recommended best practice is to use RFC 
>3066 [RFC3066],
>                 which, in conjunction with ISO 639 [ISO639], defines two-
>                 and three-letter primary language tags with optional
>                 subtags.  Examples include "en" or "eng" for English,
>                 "akk" for Akkadian, and "en-GB" for English used in the
>                 United Kingdom.</dc:description>
> >>>>>>>>
>This is misleading because RFC 3066 explicitly disallows "eng"
>(or more generally, three-letter codes when there is an equivalent
>two-letter code). If possible, please forward this comment or tell
>us where to send it.]
>primer, section 2.3, fig 5 and related: The address example is on the
>boundary of a generic internationalized address. 'postalCode' is
>very generic, whereas 'street' and 'state' may not be generic enough.
>Also, the address misses the country information. At least this should
>be added; the fields can then be understood as country-specific.
>primer, example 22: The explanation mentions 'the escaping of reserved
>characters such as ...'. This may be highly misleading. "<" (as a literal
>character) already has to be escaped, and ">" already is escaped in
>the example. Probably changing to "the uniform escaping or unescaping
>of characters" should do the job. On average, there may be more
>unescaping of NCRs when canonicalizing than escaping.
>primer, general: a few examples in section 6 use xml:lang. It should be
>used much more.
>In section 6.5, the use of xml:lang for rdfs:label but not for
>rdfs:comment is confusing. Does this suggest that rdfs:label
>can be in multiple languages, but rdfs:comment can only be
>in English?
>primer, section 6.2: Greece in French is written with grave accent,
>in HTML as Gr&egrave;ce.
>primer, section 6.3: "Unicode information (such as unicode:script)":
>It is probably better to change this to "Character usage information
>(with properties such as unicode:script)". But the use of an 'Unicode'
>namespace prefix may suggest to some reader that this is some official
>vocabulary defined by the Unicode consortium.
>Regards,    Martin.

Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2003 02:09:12 UTC