- From: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 10:37:29 +0100
- To: public-ld4lt@w3.org
Hi Felix, Thank's for this, I'll include it in the agenda for today. One point: http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/#Property:catalog_language defines the language used in the meta-data, and for that purpose is probably sufficient. However, the others seem more relevant to specifying the language of the LanguageResource that is the subject of the meta-data. For this i'd tend to agree that some way of allowing different schemes to be used for applications that need them, e.g. lexical resources or resource focussed for language preservation. But where more specialised language code requirements are not in place, then we still should specify the best practice, e.g. dct:LinguisticSystem as specified in dcat for catalogue_language, in order to promote interoperability in codes as far as possible. The current ms vocab already supports this specialisation, for example having ms:linguisticInformation information for the ms:LexicalConceptualResource subclass, which seems reasonable. cheers, Dave On 04/07/2014 13:06, Felix Sasaki wrote: > I did this and was pointed to this proposal was rejected both for RDF 1.0 and RDF 1.1, see for the later this thread > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Oct/0001.html > which at least Jose Labra and probably Jorge are already aware of, see > http://www.weso.es/MLODPatterns/Linguistic_metadata.html > > > So now we have at least four different approaches for the same purpose websites, > > http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/#Property:catalog_language > http://lingvoj.org/ > http://www.lexvo.org/ > http://glottolog.org/ > > I am wondering what best practice to derive from this - one suggestion was to use owl:sameAs between these in appropriate situations. Thoughts? > > - Felix
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2014 09:31:46 UTC