Open Juan-Juan-1 opened 3 years ago
I think a simple "should" instead of a "must" is sufficient in this case, or we risk to either make the requirement borderline useless ("must be a swiss official language") or have a riot if you define DE, FR (or both) as a must and not IT.
On the contrary, I think it would be really useful to define that at the federal level you "must" have at least 2 official languages
On which bases do we define the "mandatory" languages?
No strong opinion on what is a mandatory language, I think the "should" is the only realistic path here.
But I have a strong opinion on making it mandatory to state the language a property has, aka languageTag.
Oh, is it intentional that the specification exactly does the opposite I proposed? (-: Please make sure that the people MUST state the language they use.
Property: multiple properties, for example title, description... Class: - Ist: DCAT-AP CH does not provide any guidance regarding which language are a must and which not. It just enables multilingualism. Soll: To increase to usability of data and provide clearer guidance for data publisher at every level it should be clearly stated which language are a must. It can also be diferntiated for different federal levels. For instance: "DE and FR obligatory only for the federal level."