- From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 23:49:54 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Dan Connolly wrote: [..] > --- 5. RDF Internationalization > > ACTION: Jeremy to send his discussion of some of the issues re > xml:lang and literals to WG. > > From: > Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> > To: > www-webont-wg@w3.org > Subject: > On RDF/I18N issue > Date: > Mon, 01 Sep 2003 16:34:22 +0100 > http://www.w3.org/mid/3F5366FE.20109@hplb.hpl.hp.com > > > ACTION: Guus S. will review. I have read Jeremy's note plus links in detail. Overall, RDFCore seems to have made a well-motivated rational design choice in a space of conflicting requirements. The arguments against the alternatives proposed by I18N are compelling. The current post-LC design works for OWL and is, from a WebOnt perspective, an improvement over the LC design. > > ACTION: Guus Schreiber will send some examples of use of xml:lang to > webont mailing list. > Well, the type of examples mentioned in the RDFCore/I18N discussion did not come up in our work, where we use language tags in a very simple way. For example, to represent the IconClass category 2 (one of the top categories; IconClass works with a compositional letter/digit id system), which stands for "Nature", can be represented as the following instance of a class ic:Category: <ic:Category rdf:ID="2"> <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">nature</rdfs:label> <rdfs:label xml:lang="de">Natur</rdfs:label> <rdfs:label xml:lang="fr">nature</rdfs:label> <rdfs:label xml:lang="it">natura</rdfs:label> <rdfs:label xml:lang="no">naturen</rdfs:label> <rdfs:label xml:lang="fi">luonto</rdfs:label> </ic:Category> Guus -- Free University Amsterdam, Computer Science De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands Tel: +31 20 444 7739/7718 E-mail: schreiber@cs.vu.nl Home page: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2003 18:49:41 UTC