Ill-informed Conjecture

Schemas are more useful to morfe people if they're available in more languages.

DCAT is Cool!

<http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat>
    a owl:Ontology, voaf:Vocabulary;
    rdfs:label "The data catalog vocabulary"@en;
    rdfs:label "El vocabulario de catálogo de datos"@es;
    rdfs:label "أنطولوجية فهارس قوائم البيانات"@ar ;
    rdfs:label "Το λεξιλόγιο των καταλόγων δεδομένων"@el;
    rdfs:label "Le vocabulaire des jeux de données "@fr;
    rdfs:label "データ・カタログ語彙（DCAT）"@ja;

See http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat.ttl

DCAT is Cool?

<http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat>
    a owl:Ontology, voaf:Vocabulary;
    rdfs:label "The data catalog vocabulary"@en;
    rdfs:label "El vocabulario de catálogo de datos"@es;
    rdfs:label "أنطولوجية فهارس قوائم البيانات"@ar ;
    rdfs:label "Το λεξιλόγιο των καταλόγων δεδομένων"@el;
    rdfs:label "Le vocabulaire des jeux de données "@fr;
    rdfs:label "データ・カタログ語彙（DCAT）"@ja;

See http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat.ttl

Question 1

Does it actually help to provide schemas in multiple languages?

And if so, how, and how much?

How to do it?

Need to look at the Organization Ontology, its Japanese translation and its schema

Question 2

Is it more helpful to translate the specification or the schema?

Is one ever really helpful without the other?

Question 3

How much does it matter if the spec and the schema are not in 100% alignment?

i.e. the spec provdes a lot of context missing from the schema, so for people who only read the schema, sometimes extra clarification is provided in term definition.

Do we need a template/best practice guide?

Randomness

Take DCAT again:

<http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat>
    a owl:Ontology, voaf:Vocabulary;
    rdfs:label "The data catalog vocabulary"@en;
    rdfs:label "El vocabulario de catálogo de datos"@es;
    rdfs:label "أنطولوجية فهارس قوائم البيانات"@ar ;
    rdfs:label "Το λεξιλόγιο των καταλόγων δεδομένων"@el;
    rdfs:label "Le vocabulaire des jeux de données "@fr;
    rdfs:label "データ・カタログ語彙（DCAT）"@ja;

Why en, es, ar, el, fr and ja?

Randomness

Take DCAT again:

<http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat>
    a owl:Ontology, voaf:Vocabulary;
    rdfs:label "The data catalog vocabulary"@en;
    rdfs:label "El vocabulario de catálogo de datos"@es;
    rdfs:label "أنطولوجية فهارس قوائم البيانات"@ar ;
    rdfs:label "Το λεξιλόγιο των καταλόγων δεδομένων"@el;
    rdfs:label "Le vocabulaire des jeux de données "@fr;
    rdfs:label "データ・カタログ語彙（DCAT）"@ja;

Why en, es, ar, el, fr and ja?

Because that's what we were offered.

Question 4

What tooling and what processes should W3C put in place (ideally) to manage this?

Like any exercise, issues of demand, resources, impact and priorities all come up.

Question 5

Are the concepts of normative and informative language useful?

If so, how do we indicate that?

Summary

1. Does it actually help to provide schemas in multiple languages?
2. Is it more helpful to translate the specification or the schema?
3. How much does it matter if the spec and the schema are not in 100% alignment?
4. What tooling and what processes should W3C put in place (ideally) to manage this?
5. Are the concepts of normative and informative language useful?

Summary

1. Does it actually help to provide schemas in multiple languages?
2. Is it more helpful to translate the specification or the schema?
3. How much does it matter if the spec and the schema are not in 100% alignment?
4. What tooling and what processes should W3C put in place (ideally) to manage this?
5. Are the concepts of normative and informative language useful?
6. What can this group deliver? What do you need from W3C?

Summary

1. Does it actually help to provide schemas in multiple languages?
2. Is it more helpful to translate the specification or the schema?
3. How much does it matter if the spec and the schema are not in 100% alignment?
4. What tooling and what processes should W3C put in place (ideally) to manage this?
5. Are the concepts of normative and informative language useful?
6. What can this group deliver? What do you need from W3C?