- From: Dr. David Filip <David.Filip@ul.ie>
- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:02:09 +0100
- To: Najib Tounsi <ntounsi@emi.ac.ma>, public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CANw5LKkM0jVz9hTLG071OqbXsWFqRuu7w2RoCzZbs5-i-4=1UQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi all, last comments on this resolution proposal (about 6 days ago) were positive including one fain grained clarification by Jirka. So I'd say that Felix's resolution proposal under [1] and [2] with Jirka's clarification [2] closes the ISSUE-2 [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-multilingualweb-** lt/2012Mar/0022.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Mar/0022.html> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Mar/0028.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Mar/0030.html Best regards dF Dr. David Filip ======================= LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS University of Limerick, Ireland telephone: +353-6120-2781 *cellphone: +353-86-0222-158* facsimile: +353-6120-2734 mailto: david.filip@ul.ie On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 14:40, Najib Tounsi <ntounsi@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all > > Here is another very newbie. > After some readings, I favor the resolution suggested by Felix [1]. > > Best regards. > > Najib > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-multilingualweb-** > lt/2012Mar/0022.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Mar/0022.html> > > > > On 3/23/12 8:48 AM, Felix Sasaki wrote: > >> Hi Phil, >> >> thanks a lot for your mail. Actually I don't think that you need to dive >> deeply into RDFa and Microdata. We need just make clear in a conformance >> statement that: >> >> 1) An implementation of our standard needs to be able to parse its-* (or >> whatever prefix we have) attributes in HTML, e.g. the HTML "translate" >> attribute, its-locNote, its-term etc. >> 2) An implementation working in the XLIFF (or general XML) space needs to >> be able to parse the XML counterparts of the its-* attributes, e.g. >> its:translate, its:locNote, its:term etc. >> 3) An implementation MAY implement the (to be detailed out) "convert >> HTML5 to RDFa or Microdata" algorithm, including the URI generation >> facility Tadej mentioned. >> >> You can boil this down to a table with four columns, see attachment. An >> implementation MUST state: "I implement data category XYZ, in HTML5, or >> XML. If HTML5, then I provide the RDFa / Microdata conversion". >> >> HTH, >> >> Felix >> >> Am 22. März 2012 22:12 schrieb Phil Ritchie <philr@vistatec.ie <mailto: >> philr@vistatec.ie>>: >> >> >> I'm afraid I need to do some serious reading over the weekend on >> RDFa and Microdata before I'll feel qualified to contribute >> properly to the discussion. >> >> The important considerations for me would relate to parsability >> but all of the proposals would seem to provide well structured, >> non-ambiguous, simply tokenised format. >> >> Phil >> >> >> >> On 22 Mar 2012, at 17:18, "Felix Sasaki" <fsasaki@w3.org >> <mailto:fsasaki@w3.org>> wrote: >> >> Thank you, Tadej. Trying to summarize what you say: we need >>> >>> 1) HTML5 + ITS (or XYZ) schema >>> 2) Algorithm for transforming "HTML5+ITS" into HTML5/RDFa , >>> /Microdata, or /RDFa Lite. Could we say we just cover RDFa lite? >>> 3) Algorithm (what you wrote below) to generate URIs in RDFa >>> >>> Your question about "A question for people consuming RDF/RDFa" >>> still needs an answer, but otherwise I think we are done with >>> this. Any thoughts by others, esp. implementors in the group? >>> >>> Felix >>> >>> Am 22. März 2012 15:47 schrieb Tadej Stajner >>> <tadej.stajner@ijs.si <mailto:tadej.stajner@ijs.si>>**: >>> >>> >>> On 3/22/2012 2:11 PM, Felix Sasaki wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Am 22. März 2012 13:52 schrieb Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz >>>> <mailto:jirka@kosek.cz>>: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 22.3.2012 13:09, Felix Sasaki wrote: >>>> >>>> > Solution 1) will be user friendly, and we will define >>>> an RELAX NG schema >>>> > HTML5+ITS (or + XYZ). The same approach has been taken >>>> for Aria in the >>>> > accessibility space, and Aria is now even part of the >>>> HTML5 core language. >>>> > >>>> > Comments are very welcome. I hope we can agree on >>>> during next week's call >>>> > and find a volunteer for maintaining the schema and >>>> another one for the >>>> > mappings. >>>> >>>> I volunteer for creating and maintaining schema. >>>> >>>> >>>> Great, thanks a lot. >>>> >>>> >>>> > Regarding the "URIs for element nodes in HTML5" >>>> discussion: Ivan said that >>>> > our group should consider whether this is really an issue. >>>> >>>> I would expected more positioned reply from SW activity >>>> lead :-) >>>> >>>> >>>> Well, to be fair, he was more precise: >>>> >>>> "RDFa does not include any definition, as far as the >>>> extracted RDF is concerned, on pointing 'back' to the >>>> original source structure. This should be done explicitly. I >>>> am not sure whether this is a major issue, this is something >>>> for the group to consider..." >>>> >>>> But the essence is the same: is it important for us? >>>> >>> >>> Some things to add (and to shed some light on ACTION-32): >>> >>> I think it's important to define a way to do it, but not have >>> it obligatory to serialize because it has zero utility until >>> someone actually uses it in pure RDF. The thing is, as long >>> as the HTML document is available and the RDFa is inlined, >>> the references to the HTML structure in RDF don't add any >>> additional information and can be trivially reconstructed. >>> RDFa consumption tools can likely handle that kind of content >>> as-is. >>> >>> The tricky case is if someone at some point wants to get pure >>> RDF from this (dropping the HTML in the process), we should >>> have some specification that they could follow to achieve >>> these references. The use case I can think of is feeding >>> ITS-marked-up input into a NLP pipeline running on something >>> like NIF, which needs URIs for annotated fragments of text. >>> Luckily the conversion itself is pretty mechanical, so I see >>> some strategies for minting URIs that can be dereferenceable >>> directly to the fragment: >>> * have the RDF node point back to the HTML element's id, if >>> there is any (<meta property="its:annotates" >>> resource="#id_myElement_bar" />) >>> * have the RDF node mint a URI for the fragment using one if >>> the NIF recipes (<meta property="its:annotates" >>> resource="#hash_1_3_**12341234123412341_bar" />) >>> >>> A question for people consuming RDF/RDFa - is defining this >>> sort of "URI generation recipe" at the RDFa consumption stage >>> breaking too many assumptions? I'd like to avoid having >>> producers generate redundant data. >>> >>> .. and back to answering "how much RDF do we need"? >>> My reason for considering RDFa was to encode the additional >>> information we might have about the concepts that are behind >>> the text. Right now the most important uses are: >>> - the URI of the concept (the "means " relation); >>> - the type URI of the concept (see ISSUE-3) (the "this >>> fragment represents a concept of the type" relation); >>> - the labels of the concept in other languages; >>> >>> Since we can model those via the proposed data categories, we >>> don't need explicit RDF support to represent this - it is >>> however very important that these predicates can point to >>> URIs in the RDF space (as is currently the case with >>> its:termInfoRef, for instance), and that we at least have a >>> process in place for transforming "HTML5+ITS" into HTML5/RDFa >>> , /Microdata, or /RDFa Lite. Right now the examples you >>> submitted look good for that purpose, adding an HTML URI >>> generator should cover that part. >>> >>> -- Tadej >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Anyway we probably shouldn't spend much time on mappings >>>> as I can't >>>> imagine anyone using RDFa/microdata in favor of simple >>>> attributes. >>>> >>>> >>>> I hope that the mapping can be fairly mechanical and will >>>> not need much time. Even if it is not created by hand, I can >>>> imagine tools like Enrycher that easily can generate it. >>>> Having then a mapping of Enrycher output as an input to >>>> schema.org <http://schema.org> based SEO is a nice scenario, >>>> >>>> IMO, but it depends on RDFa/microdata. >>>> >>>> Felix >>>> >>>> >>>> Jirka >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ------------------------------** >>>> ------------------------------**------ >>>> Jirka Kosek e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz >>>> <mailto:jirka@kosek.cz> http://xmlguru.cz >>>> >>>> ------------------------------** >>>> ------------------------------**------ >>>> Professional XML consulting and training services >>>> DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document >>>> processing >>>> ------------------------------** >>>> ------------------------------**------ >>>> OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO >>>> JTC1/SC34 member >>>> ------------------------------** >>>> ------------------------------**------ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- Felix Sasaki >>>> DFKI / W3C Fellow >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- Felix Sasaki >>> DFKI / W3C Fellow >>> >>> >> ************************************************************** >> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and >> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they >> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify >> the sender immediately by e-mail. >> >> www.vistatec.com <http://www.vistatec.com> >> >> ************************************************************** >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Felix Sasaki >> DFKI / W3C Fellow >> >> -- > Najib Tounsi, > W3C Office, Morocco > >
Received on Thursday, 29 March 2012 11:03:17 UTC