Re: [Relevant for all] options for the RDF representation of ITS 2.0

Hi Felix et al.,

I think we need some more information to better understand the implications of the three options you present. So here are my initial thoughts and questions:

Option 1
This is the lowest hurdle, correct? We would keep the existing NIF references and simply make them non-normative, or is there anything more involved?

The drawbacks would be that a a non-normative section might be ignored by implementers and that a non-normative section written as though it were normative would be a little odd.


Option 2a
What is involved in 2a? Is it just copying the files and declaring them as part of ITS, or is there more involved?

This would, I would assume, create a mandatory new last call since actually declaring this NIF content as a normative part of ITS 2.0 would be a major substantive change. (A mapping is one thing, but this is adding new stuff.)

I'm also worried about what this does to NIF in the long run. If we declare this NIF content part of ITS 2.0, what happens when NIF itself develops further? It would seem we are creating, at the least, a fork in NIF (of between NIF and this NIFish stuff we would create), unless we have some sort of mutual maintenance agreement (but that would lead us right back to the problem we face now, would it not? that W3C does not want to be bound to external specifications with problematic IP).

Maybe you see a way to avoid some of the possible problems I can foresee here (and I assume you've probably thought this through much better than I have and probably consulted with Sebastian Hellmann), so what are your thoughts for how this would work and how we avoid potential problems.


Option 2b
Unless someone has an idea that is just waiting and ready to go at this point, I would not pursue this option given our deadlines. We simply don't have time to develop something that does what NIF does internal to our group.


In short, I think we need to understand the broader implications of each approach before we come to consensus and many of those implications depend on W3C positions that we aren't in a position to know yet. But if you know, Felix, maybe you can give some more guidance here.

Best,

Arle

On 2013 Aug 12, at 08:42 , Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> this mail is relevant for the general progress of ITS 2.0. Please have a look even if you are not interested in the RDF representation of ITS 2.0.
> 
> At
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Aug/0009.html
> 
> I had explained changes to be done to move ITS 2.0. forward. The change "make NIF a *non* normative reference" is actually just one option to reply to this requirement from our charter
> http://www.w3.org/2012/09/mlw-lt-charter.html
> 
> "The MultilingualWeb-LT WG will assure that the metadata approach being developed is allowing a conversion to RDF, to foster integration of MultilingualWeb-LT metadata into the Semantic Web."
> 
> This requirement does not say that we define a normative approach to allow for that conversion. My mail at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Aug/0009.html
> was suggesting to use NIF as the non normative approach.
> 
> With this mail I want to bring all options clearly in front of the working group and see what you think. Please have a look at let's decide on Wednesday how to move forward. Until then, the edit announced in the 0009 mail is on hold.
> 
> So the options are
> 
> 1) Have a non-normative reference to NIF, as suggested in the 0009 mail
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Intent to have a standardized, that is normative RDF representation of ITS2. This could then not be NIF. It could be
> 
> 
> 2a) something based on NIF, e.g. moving the six URIs that we rely on (+ the ontology file?)
> 
>         1. http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#Context
>         2. http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#RFC5147String
>         3. http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#beginIndex
>         4. http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#endIndex
>         5. http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#referenceContext
>         6. http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#isString
>         7. The ontology file that defines these URIs (= RDF classes +
>            properties)
> http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core/version-1.0/nif-core.ttl
> 
> into the W3C namespace and define the URIs + the ontology as normative part of ITS2. But it could also be
> 
> 
> 2b) something completely different, yet to be defined. Issue https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/18 made clear that it cannot be RDFa.
> 
> 
> Above options are hard to evaluate since we have the EU funding based timeline. But to move forward we need a working group opinion. Please state your thoughts in this thread.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Felix
>