- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:27:08 -0500
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
NB: In case people get this twice, the following is a resend; I've been having some email problems Martin Duerst wrote: > Hello Frank, > > Many thanks for getting back to me (and the I18N WG) so quickly. > Some more details below. You're welcome. Additional comments on the changes I hadn't agreed to make in my previous message appear below: > > At 21:06 03/11/14 -0500, Frank Manola wrote: > > > > >> 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. >> >> >> >> Martin-- >> >> Thanks again for your comments on the RDF drafts. Regarding your >> second message, >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0121.html: >> snip > >> > >> > primer, fig. 3 and all related examples/discussion: Instead of >> > http://www.example.org/terms/language, >> > http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/language 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. >> > >> >> If you're concerned about making the point that existing vocabularies >> should be used where possible, it seems to me a better plan would be >> to explicitly say this later in the section, where the value of using >> shared vocabularies is discussed. > > > Sorry for not being clear enough. My primary concern was that > if you use something related to language, use the most well-known > http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/language, not something else. Thanks for clarifying. OK, I see your point now and, in spite of the number of places changes will be needed to fix this, I think this is important enough to make the changes you suggest. > > If the general point that existing vocabularies should be used > isn't yet made in the primer, then I think it would be a very > good thing to make it. I'm sure you know the best place for that. > I think this point is already made, but perhaps could use some additional emphasis; I'll see. > snip > >> > 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. >> > >> >> This affects a number of places in the Primer (including an example in >> Section 4.4), and also the Concepts spec (which copies Figure 6). I >> think people will get the idea (and not be terribly misled) without >> these changes (which, after all, involve what are intended to be >> simple illustrations). > > > I'm sure that it's not too much work to create examples than are both > illustrative and usable out of the box. In every single case of a spec > W3C has created so far, the experience is that people do more of cut-and- > paste than we would like them to do. A document like the Primer has an > enormous potential for spreading good (or bad) practice very widely. > Examples from there easily get into all kinds of teaching material, > books,... apart from being copied directly. > Sorry; I still don't feel the need to make this change (particularly given the corresponding need to change Concepts). > snip > >> > 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. >> > >> >> I'll make the change you suggest to Section 6.3 (and, for parallelism, >> similar changes to the other examples mentioned here, like >> "mime:contentType"). >> >> Regarding the use of the "unicode" namespace prefix, I can't do much >> about that, since this is the name the XPackage folks have chosen for >> this "ontology" (their term). The same problem exists for any >> namespace prefix that might be used (here or elsewhere), since anyone >> can locally choose to use a given prefix (it's only the full URIs that >> are subject to some form of control). If a warning to this effect is >> needed, I'd prefer to make a general warning in Section 2.2, rather >> than scattering them all over the Primer. > > > I'm somewhat confused. Are you saying that you changed the prefix > used in the Primer, but can't change their use of the prefix? > Or are you saying that you can't change the 'unicode' prefix > in the Primer? The former would be nice, the later would be > difficult for me to understand. > The XPackage documentation defines what it calls the "Unicode ontology" with the namespace http://xpackage.org/namespaces/2003/unicode#, using the namespace prefix "unicode:", and lists properties as "unicode:script" and " unicode:codePoints". So what I'm saying is that I've carried this usage into the Primer (since, after all, I'm describing their specs), without changing the prefix "unicode:" they use to refer to terms from that namespace. Of course I could have used another prefix, but then I'd have to define it, and explain what I did, to explain the difference between what readers see in the Primer, and what they might see if they looked at the XPackage documentation. I think getting into this latter kind of explanation would divert attention from the example. Perhaps a way to deal with both our concerns would be to change the text in question to indicate that these are the XPackage prefixes, e.g.: "Besides the main packaging vocabulary, XPackage itself specifies several supplemental vocabularies: a vocabulary (using prefix file:) for describing files (with properties such as file:size), a vocabulary (using prefix mime:) for providing MIME information (with properties such as mime:contentType), a vocabulary (using prefix unicode:) for providing character usage information (with properties such as unicode:script), and a vocabulary (using prefix x:) for describing XML-based resources (with properties such as x:namespace and x:style)." Thanks again, Frank
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2003 08:59:35 UTC