I don't think that linked data assumes you can cut text up into tiny fragments that can be trivially pasted back together. It assumes that reality can be modeled and published as a graph in such a way that makes information easier to find and reuse in other contexts. RDF isn't a miracle and it's wrong to expect that.
On Aug 17, 2016, at 4:27 PM, Stuart Yeates <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> What does RDF have to do with bi-directional text?
> Actually quite a bit. RDF, (like MARC) takes a reductionist approach to text, assuming that you can cut text up into tiny fragments and then rebuild the content by trivially pasting them back together. BIDI showed some of fallacies in this approach. Unicode 8 (which includes signwriting) is going to re-enforce these, particularly in jurisdictions such as mine which give official recognition to sign languages.
> I have a new phone number: 04 463 5692
> https://www.facebook.com/VUWLibrary / https://www.facebook.com/TKMPC
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Martynas Jusevičius <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, 18 August 2016 12:42:02 a.m.
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Life after MARC?
> What does RDF have to do with bi-directional text? RDF is a directed
> graph datamodel, text is only one of its node types (literals).
> Whatever you put in the literals, RDF doesn't care, nor should it.
> "rdf:PlainLiteral: A Datatype for RDF Plain Literals (Second Edition)"
> spec actually says:
> "As with plain literals, this datatype can associate language tags
> with Unicode strings, but it does not provide its own facilities for
> representing natural language utterances. Unicode bidirectional
> control characters [BIDI] may be used within these literals, like all
> other Unicode characters."
> Plain literals have been superseded by xsd:string in RDF 1.1 though,
> so this is probably outdated. I guess need to check XML Schema
> Datatypes for BIDI support.
> There is also a relevant W3C doc here:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Lammert, Richard
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Andrew Cunningham
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> RDF is showing its age and has a number of inherent weaknesses,
>>> particularly bidi support. Parsing BIBFRAME to generate HTML fragments when
>>> more that one embedding level is involved is non-trivial.
>> Andrew, thank you for this reality check. Almost fifty years ago, when MARC
>> was being developed, it could handle any bibliographic description that was
>> needed--as long as it used the Latin alphabet (plus a few diacritics).
>> Twenty years ago, MARC specifications were changed to permit the entire
>> Unicode character set. This year, the world's major bibliographic utility
>> has upgraded to allow that entire character set.
>> While all W3C specifications are inherently Unicode-based, your remark about
>> bidi support is well taken. I would hate to move to a new standard that
>> could handle any bibliographic description that was needed--as long as it
>> was written left to right. Then we would only have to wait for good
>> right-to-left support to take care of *all* our bibliographic needs.
>> Rev. Richard A. Lammert e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>> Technical Services Librarian mail: 6600 N. Clinton St.
>> Systems Librarian Fort Wayne, IN 46825-4916
>> Kroemer Library phone: 260-452-3148
>> Concordia Theological Seminary