Re: agenda+ referencing ontology (Re: ISSUE-119: ITS RDF Ontology creation [MLW-LT Standard Draft])

Hi Felix,
I had another look at the new version. There is a small, but important 
difference between DatatypeProperties and xsd:anyURI, see here: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2010Jul/0395.html (see 
Axel Polleres answer)

In your case however you want to refer to the the rdf:resources, so 
anything with xsd:anyURI should be owl:ObjectProperty with no rdfs:range:
itsrdf:taAnnotatorsRef
     a owl:DatatypeProperty ;
     rdfs:range xsd:anyURI .

should be:

itsrdf:taAnnotatorsRef
     a owl:ObjectProperty .

This implies per definition, that the Object has to be an rdf:resource 
and a valid URI. I am not sure, whether xsd:anyURI covers IRI's as well, 
but owl:ObjectProperty should be compatible IIRC.

All the best,
Sebastian

Am 17.04.2013 12:31, schrieb Felix Sasaki:
> P.S. again: with feedback from Sebastian (thanks a lot for that!), I 
> made an update to the ontology. This doesn't influence the examples 
> below (at Dave: we need to update the wiki then, if you agree).
>
> - Felix
>
>
>
>
> Am 17.04.13 10:36, schrieb Felix Sasaki:
>> Hi Phil,
>>
>> Am 17.04.13 09:31, schrieb Phil Ritchie:
>>> Felix
>>>
>>> Does NIF have wider adoption than RDF?
>>
>> NIF is an RDF based format. That is, the relation betwen NIF and RDF 
>> is like between XML and XHTML, or XML and XLIFF.
>>
>> We use NIF in ITS2 to connect ITS information in markup (XML, HTML5) 
>> with an RDF representation. See
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#conversion-to-nif
>> and a full example input HTML5 at
>> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#EX-HTML-whitespace-normalization
>> RDF output using NIF and the ITS2 ontology at
>> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/examples/nif/EX-nif-conversion-output.xml
>>
>> The purpose of the ITS2 ontology is not to relate the RDF 
>> representation to XML/RDF - NIF does that -, but to identify the ITS2 
>> properties in an RDF manner, that is with RDF predicates.
>>
>> There is an interconnection between NIF and the ITS ontology. See 
>> this example generated from a part of
>> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/examples/nif/EX-nif-conversion-output.xml
>>
>> <http://example.com/exampledoc.html#char=11,17> nif:anchorOf "Dublin";
>>     nif:referenceContext <http://example.com/exampledoc.html#char=0,29>;
>>     a nif:RFC5147String;
>>     itsrdf:taIdentRef <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dublin>;
>>     itsrdf:translate "no";
>>     itsrdf:withinText "yes".
>>
>> This statement
>>
>> <http://example.com/exampledoc.html#char=11,17> nif:anchorOf "Dublin".
>>
>> Relates the HTML5 document with the RDF representation. To ancor this 
>> relation in the NIF RDF vocabulary we have this statement
>>
>> <http://example.com/exampledoc.html#char=11,17> a nif:RFC5147String.
>>
>> The actual ITS ontology statements are these three. They have the 
>> same subject as the NIF statements above. That creates the forehand 
>> mentioned relation between NIF and ITS2.
>> <http://example.com/exampledoc.html#char=11,17> itsrdf:taIdentRef 
>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dublin>.
>> <http://example.com/exampledoc.html#char=11,17> itsrdf:translate "no".
>> <http://example.com/exampledoc.html#char=11,17> itsrdf:withinText "yes".
>>
>> Now, if you want to process this in SPARQL asking for all non 
>> translatable items you would write something like this:
>>
>> SELECT ?translatableItems
>> WHERE { ?translatableItems 
>> <http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its/rdf#translate> "no" }
>>
>> and get as a result
>> http://example.com/exampledoc.html#char=23,30
>> http://example.com/exampledoc.html#char=11,17
>>
>> Does this make sense and would it work for what you have in mind?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Felix
>>
>>> I understand from what I've read that it is maybe easier to read, 
>>> more compact?
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17 Apr 2013, at 08:22, "Felix Sasaki" <fsasaki@w3.org 
>>> <mailto:fsasaki@w3.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Dave, Phil, all,
>>>>
>>>> I have put the ontology on the w3c server. The namespace
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its/rdf#
>>>> or
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its/rdf#translate
>>>> resolve with 303 "see other" to
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its/rdf-content/its-rdf.rdf (in RDF/XML 
>>>> version)
>>>> or
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its/rdf-content/its-rdf.html
>>>> in the latter we can put some more documentation, but for the time 
>>>> being what is here is sufficient.
>>>>
>>>> Can you discuss today whether people would agree with this? Note 
>>>> that we then should define the namespace for the ontology also in
>>>> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#notation
>>>> and this would mean that we reference the ontology normatively. If 
>>>> people agree with this, could you give me an action item to add the 
>>>> ontology URI during todays call?
>>>>
>>>> Note for all implementers: this wouldn't influence you only if you 
>>>> implement the NIF conversion. Currently this is Sebastian and I - 
>>>> anybody else?
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Felix
>>>>
>>>> Am 17.04.13 09:04, schrieb Phil Ritchie:
>>>>> Dave
>>>>>
>>>>> I certainly want to work on transforming some Xliff with ITS LQI 
>>>>> and Provenance data into RDF so I'd like to chip in with this.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure I have all of the understanding necessary though - 
>>>>> particularly around schema creation and validation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would it be worthwhile having a conf. call to get on the same 
>>>>> page? I should be on today's call so we could chat then.
>>>>
>>>> I would like to participate in that discussion - I can't be on the 
>>>> call today. But feel free to to discuss & hopefully we can bring up 
>>>> the topic again next week, or on a separate, dedicated call - would 
>>>> you be available Phil?
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Felix
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil
>>>>> Twitter: philinthecloud
>>>>> Skype: philviathecloud
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 17 Apr 2013, at 01:38, "Dave Lewis" <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie 
>>>>> <mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Jirka, Felix, Sebastian, all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've updated ITS-RDF ontology as follows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) I agree with Felix's comment to remove custom XML schema types 
>>>>>> for attributes as RDf platforms in general don't validate against 
>>>>>> these, instead just specifying the simple XML schema type as 
>>>>>> appropriate, e.g. xsd:string, xsd:anyURI, xsd:decimal, 
>>>>>> xsd:nonNegativeInteger, xsd:integer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) for data categories with standoff markup I've introduced a 
>>>>>> class to allow the correct grouping of indivdual attiributes to 
>>>>>> the a specfic item. These calsses are ProvRecord and 
>>>>>> LocalizationQualityIssue
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) for annotatorsRef I have just introduced individual attributes 
>>>>>> for each data categoriy where it applies, namely: 
>>>>>> termAnnotatorsRef, taAnnotatorsRef, mtConfidenceAnnotatorsRef
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4) I've omitted anything related to Ruby
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe this is consistent with the NIF related text in the 
>>>>>> current draft.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've attached the ontology as a Turtle file, and have updated the 
>>>>>> same on:
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/ITS-RDF_mapping 
>>>>>> <http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/ITS-RDF_mapping#Ontology_.28DRAFT.29> 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we can firm up on this then I propose documenting it in a more 
>>>>>> accessible format as per W3C norms. In addition we will need some 
>>>>>> best practice guidance on using this ontology with at least both 
>>>>>> NIF and PROV-O. I'm happy to work on these also, though all other 
>>>>>> inputs welcome.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 29/03/2013 13:37, Jirka Kosek wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Dave,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> on the last telcon I have been tasked to "refresh" and try to move
>>>>>>> forward some issues. Could you please implemented changes below into
>>>>>>> proposed ITS RDF Ontology.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Jirka
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 25.2.2013 9:04, MultilingualWeb-LT Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>>>>>>> mlw-lt-track-ISSUE-119: ITS RDF Ontology creation [MLW-LT Standard Draft]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/119
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Raised by: Felix Sasaki
>>>>>>>> On product: MLW-LT Standard Draft
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dave started an ITS RDF Ontology. See
>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/ITS-RDF_mapping#Ontology_.28DRAFT.29
>>>>>>>> This is useful for the NIF conversion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There was an offline discussion about this, including Dave, Leroy, Sebastian and I.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Some thoughts about the ontology current at
>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/ITS-RDF_mapping#Ontology_.28DRAFT.29
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - the ontology uses various RDF classes that are not defined, e.g. "itstype:its-taConfidence.type" is identified as a class via
>>>>>>>> "rdf:type itstype:its-taConfidence.type"
>>>>>>>> So *if* one want to use "itstype:its-taConfidence.type" as a class, you'd need also
>>>>>>>> itstype:its-taConfidence.type rdf:type rdf:Class
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - classes are normally written in upper case, so
>>>>>>>> "its-taConfidence.type" would be
>>>>>>>> "Its-taConfidence.type"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - As said in the offline thread (sorry for the repetition, guys), I would not define such classes at all. It would be sufficient to define actually no class - just use NIF URIs, and then have statements like this
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> someNIFBasedSubjectUri
>>>>>>>>  its:locQualityIssueComment[1] "'c'es' is unknown. Could be 'c'est'";
>>>>>>>>  its:locQualityIssueEnabled[1]="yes" ;
>>>>>>>>  its:locQualityIssueSeverity[1] "50";
>>>>>>>>  its:locQualityIssueType "misspelling".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The RDF predicates would take as a domain a NIF URI, and as the range an XML literal (or HTML literal, if we use RDF 1.1).
>>>>>>>> This approach has also the advantage that you can convert the test suite output easily to RDF "instance" data.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Felix
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <itsrdf.ttl>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ************************************************************
>>>>> VistaTEC Ltd. Registered in Ireland 268483.
>>>>> Registered Office, VistaTEC House, 700, South Circular Road,
>>>>> Kilmainham. Dublin 8. Ireland.
>>>>>
>>>>> The information contained in this message, including any accompanying
>>>>> documents, is confidential and is intended only for the addressee(s).
>>>>> The unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, or alteration of this
>>>>> message is strictly forbidden. If you have received this message in
>>>>> error please notify the sender immediately.
>>>>> ************************************************************
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ************************************************************
>>> VistaTEC Ltd. Registered in Ireland 268483.
>>> Registered Office, VistaTEC House, 700, South Circular Road,
>>> Kilmainham. Dublin 8. Ireland.
>>>
>>> The information contained in this message, including any accompanying
>>> documents, is confidential and is intended only for the addressee(s).
>>> The unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, or alteration of this
>>> message is strictly forbidden. If you have received this message in
>>> error please notify the sender immediately.
>>> ************************************************************
>>>
>>
>


-- 
Dipl. Inf. Sebastian Hellmann
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig
Projects: http://nlp2rdf.org , http://linguistics.okfn.org , 
http://dbpedia.org/Wiktionary , http://dbpedia.org
Homepage: http://bis.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/SebastianHellmann
Research Group: http://aksw.org