Closed HaydarAk closed 4 years ago
I am not sure how 'durable' the vocabulary is. There is no organization behind it and I could be that at some point in the future the server and the vocab are simply gone. However, I really like the references to ISO 639. Can't we just link to that standard, and 'pretend' its RDF/Linked Data?
Can't we just link to that standard, and 'pretend' its RDF/Linked Data?
That's basically what they do with:
owl:sameAs <http://dbpedia.org/resource/ISO_639:deu> ;
except that they also define additional properties and related resources.
What would be the "best practice" modelling of this ? Adding the references to the of ids:Language instances (example below) ?
idsc:GERMAN a ids:Language;
rdfs:label "German";
owl:sameAs <http://dbpedia.org/resource/ISO_639:deu> ;
We could also switch to the coding scheme of the ISO standard, for the code:
idsc:DEU a ids:Language;
rdfs:label "German";
owl:sameAs <http://dbpedia.org/resource/ISO_639:deu> ;
Any suggestions regarding the modelling, @clange ?
Problem:
The current implementation of ids:Language, especially the language instances, lack references to existing, standardized language vocabularies and language code lists. dcterms is inaccurate.
Suggestion:
Redesign ids:Language using the Lingvoj vocabulary. Lingvoj further specifies dcterms:language and dcterms:LinguisticSystem and also contains instances of languages with references to standardized language codes.
Example of an instance