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

Hi, Felix, all,
well, since NIF has a lifecycle, tempo and support independent of ITS, 
I'd go for option 1 - a non-normative reference. Moving (2a) it to a new 
namespace seemingly implies a dependency on W3C, and I'm not sure what 
that would do to their process. I think the organizational and 
operational unknowns can get complex with this.

For ITS2.0 and its users, my opinion is that having the reference 
non-normative instead of normative wouldn't make a difference in terms 
of adoption.

-- Tadej

On 8/12/2013 1:42 AM, Felix Sasaki 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
>

Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2013 14:05:35 UTC