[rdfweb-dev] FOAF Japanese introduction

[Graham Klyne]

At 11:21 03/06/03 +0900, Masahide Kanzaki wrote:
>I wonder how to include both English and Japanese names in <foaf:name>
>element, so that Japanese native readers as well as foreigners be
>comfortable. I first tried something like:
>
><foaf:name>
>  <rdf:Alt>
>   <rdf:li>Masahide Kanzaki</rdf:li>
>   <rdf:li xml:lang="ja">$B?@:j at 51Q(B</rdf:li>
>  </rdf:Alt>
></foaf:name>
>
>* '$B?@:j at 51Q(B' is my name in Japanese characters. Sorry if you see some 
>garbages.
>
>Though it's a valid RDF, the range of foaf:name is defined as rdfs:Literal,
>so this idea failed. But two foaf:name's
>
><foaf:name>Masahide Kanzaki</foaf:name>
><foaf:name xml:lang="ja">$B?@:j at 51Q(B</foaf:name>
>
>seems to denote two different names (like real name and pen name). Should I
>put both in one element?

In a sense, given that a foaf:name is a literal rendering of your name, is 
it not correct to say these are two different foaf:name's, even if they are 
in some sense different renderings of the same name?

What follows is not a serious suggestion, just a "thought experiment":

If you wanted to introduce an abstraction for your name (e.g., the spoken 
form that you recognize), which may be represented by different strings in 
different language scripts, then maybe a different property would be needed

   ...
    <foaf:spokenName>
      <rdf:Description>
        <foaf:romanPhonetic>Masahide Kanzaki</foaf:romanPhonetic>
        <foaf:japanesePhonetic>$B?@:j at 51Q(B</foaf:japanesePhonetic>
      </rdf:Description>
    </foaf:spokenName>
   ...

(I realize that the Japanese rendering is probably nonsense for at least 
two reasons... (a) the non-USASCII characters are probably not transferred 
accurately, and (b) I've not taken account of Kanji not being phonetic... 
but I hope these infidelities don't obscure the underlying idea about 
different views of a name.)

><foaf:name xml:lang="ja">$B?@:j at 51Q(B (Masahide Kanzaki)</foaf:name>
>
>Could anyone suggest a good approach ?

Personally, I'd be inclined to go with the idea that you have (at least) 
two foaf:name values.

I don't think there's a right and wrong way here, and others may have 
different views...

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK at NineByNine.org>
PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E