Re: Let's drop RDFa in the requirements !

Hi Maxime,
Thanks you for this further clarification.

I think a formulation you define, where the litteral would be the 
_object_ of the triple while the span is the subject, may be sufficient 
for what ITS is looking for. We only want to mark the litteral for 
further processing, rather than wanting to make direct assertions about 
it as a subject.

The question of whether we should be using RDFa for this at all is a 
broader one. It would be good to get other views, especially from 
potential implementors of ITS2.0 on this?

Also, to reinforce Maxime's point, the ontolex members and their 
expertise would be very welcome at the upcoming dublin workshop. On the 
11 june we are looking at future roadmaps for convergence of the 
multilingual web with LOD. On the 12 and 13th we will be focussing 
directly on the requirements for the ITS2.0 recommendation that the 
MLW-LT WG is currently producing. We've not finalised the schedule yet, 
but I imagine that these RDFa issue would be examined early on the 12th 
in the context of terminology management and it tool support in 
localization.

Kind Regards,
Dave


On 02/05/2012 11:08, Maxime Lefrançois wrote:
> Hi Dave, The MSW-CG and MLW-LT-XG members,
> my answers below
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     *De: *"David Lewis" <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
>     *À: *public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
>     *Envoyé: *Mardi 1 Mai 2012 02:23:47
>     *Objet: *Re: Let's drop RDFa in the requirements !
>
>     Hi Maxime,
>     Some comments below:
>
>     On 27/04/2012 15:57, Maxime Lefrançois wrote:
>
>         Hi,
>
>         in mail
>         http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Apr/0131.html,
>         I wrote a possible RDFa markup to represent the fact that "a
>         fragment of text is identified as a named entity". I stressed
>         that there is a shift of meaning : the meaning using RDFa is:
>         "there is a resource in the document that its:lexicalizes a
>         named entity, and that has for its:value in english some
>         fragment of text".
>
>         Actually, there will always be a shift of meaning if we are to
>         use RDFa, and this is a strong conceptualization
>         incompatibility between ITS and RDF. In fact, in ITS one
>         annotates fragments of text (litterals), but in RDF litterals
>         can't be subject of a triple. As simple as that.
>
>
>     But does wrapping the litteral in a span and then adding an id
>     attribute to that not make it dereferencable and then therefore
>     the potential subject of a triple?
>
> Yes and no,
>  - the uri could be the subject of a triple anywhere of the web, but 
> the uri refers to the span, and not to the the text fragment that the 
> span contains.
>  - if you want to add a triple in the very same document, you need 
> RDFa, and in RDF/RDFa there is no mechanism to use a litteral as a 
> subject, it is forbidden. In RDFa lite, the minimal triple needs a 
> property="" attribute to define the property of the triple, and the 
> text fragment is the object of the triple.:
> <span id="myid" property="its:property">mytext</span> -----> [:myid 
> its:property "mytext"]