Re: [All] ITS2 3rd last call issues, please attend 4 September / 11 September call and / or provide input via mail

thanks Felix and Sebastien for that explanation,a couple of questions 
inline:

On 29/08/2013 07:22, Felix Sasaki wrote:
>> If we support an RDF WG proposal but have no direct influence to 
>> action it (assuming we need NLP2RDF for that) are we forced to just 
>> "ignore" RDF WG in order to move forward? I guess we can say "we like 
>> proposal X and will work to achieve it but cannot give a timeline".
>
> We can replace examples in our spec - e.g.
> http://example.com/exampledoc.html#char=11,17
> by an URI with either with the new frag ID scheme or by a query string
> http://example.com/?inputdoc=exampledoc.html&char=11,17
>
>
sorry, i was just unclear which you were referring to by "new frag ID 
scheme " above.

>>
>> Maybe I am over-thinking this.
>
> Not at all - your questions make a lot of sense and it is good to 
> discuss these. In the ITS2 spec we don't talk about the fragment 
> identifier scheme in any location - so we can't break anything. By 
> replacing examples with either option 1) or 2) we would be fine.

If the URL used in the RDF for the NIF string subclass does not actually 
need the char 'attributes' because we have nif:beginIndex and 
nif:endIndex then is the rest of the URL redundant as we have that 
information also (sort-of) explicitly in nif:wasConvertedFrom? If so why 
even attempt to encode this information in the URL of the String 
instance - could we just use any otherwise meaningful unique identifier 
right?

I only ask because that latter option might avoid any further confusion 
over the NIF examples in the spec, e.g. the query string option might 
still tempt the question of how its used, but there might be other NIF 
related implications I'm not aware of.

cheers,
Dave