W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpmlod@w3.org > September 2013

Re: Fragment issues in ITS/HTML/XML mapping to NIF

From: Jorge Gracia <jgracia@fi.upm.es>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 12:15:41 +0200
Message-ID: <CANzuSaN291uyXRyYdnsgBh7Ncw4LFGm5WQb09=pnSOLXM3kO+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: "public-bpmlod@w3.org" <public-bpmlod@w3.org>
Hi Dave,

Thanks for this!, It looks quite relevant for our next discussion
about naming and dereferencing.
Notice, though, that there is no meeting today. Telcos are planned for
1st and 3rd Wednesday each month, so next one will be on 18th.

Regards,
Jorge

2013/9/11 Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>:
> Hi all,
> I won't be able to make the call today, but as promised last week here a
> pointer to an issue raised by the RDF WG in relation to the use of fragment
> identifiers in NIF, as used in the ITS-NIF mapping in the ITS 2.0
> specification.
>
> The issue is described at;
> https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/131
>
> basically pointing out that the 'char' media fragments use in the mapping to
> identity specific annotated text, is only specified for plain text file
> types and not for html or xml. Also the xpath option for fragment
> identifies, while ok for xml files does not apply to html files. the result
> is that if we use such fragment URL in the RDF we generate from a  xml+its
> or html+its mapping the URL won't be derferencable, therefore violating this
> core linked data principle.
>
> The ideal solution would be to get these media type and associated
> processing descriptions registered with the RDF. This wasn't an option for
> the MLW-LT working group due to our time constraints, so we went for a query
> style URL instead, which is derferenceable, and added a note about the
> issues around the fragment option. The agreed text is in the spec at:
> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#conversion-to-nif
> note there is a reverse mapping also.
>
> While this is obviously an issue for NIF in the short term also. Its
> acknowledged by the RDF group that registering those fragment types would be
> generally useful in tying together the web document parsing world with the
> linked data world more clearly.
>
> Perhaps that is a task that we in this group could consider taking on? This
> guide gives us a starting point:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/fragid-best-practices/
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Jorge Gracia, PhD
Ontology Engineering Group
Artificial Intelligence Department
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/~jgracia/
Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2013 10:16:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:45:36 UTC