W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > June 2012

Re: mlw-lt-track-ISSUE-29 (Maxime): Please comment the possible solutions for HTML+ITS2.0 to HTML (and | embedded by | embedding) RDF

From: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:40:42 +0200
Message-ID: <4FE3245A.90803@kosek.cz>
To: MultilingualWeb-LT Working Group <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
CC: MultilingualWeb-LT Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
On 21.6.2012 10:16, MultilingualWeb-LT Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:

> Generally, we distinguish between solutions on three aspects:
> 1. ITS info may be in HTML or in RDF or both.
>  b. RDF coexist with ITS attributes in the HTML
>      - pros: the document is kept unchanged
>      - cons: redundancy

I think that having document unchanged is non-goal. By having the same
information expressed in a two different ways means that it is very
likely that such information can diverge and you will have to decide
what takes precedence then.

I think that mapping from HTML+ITS to RDFa should strip all original
its-* attributes and global rules referenced by <link rel="itsrules">

> 2. three possible ways to attach a set of triples to a document (may be a combination of all three):
>  a. inline RDFa (RDFa is usually used to make text that's already human-readable machine-readable too.) ;
>      - cons: We face lots of issues with RDFa inline annotation. For instance, when we want to add RDFa inline progressively during the process: we'd need to modify every NIF URIs computed so far.

Maybe you can use something different then NIF then. For example XPath
location of element that has its-* attached to it?

>  b. in the head: using a script element and a media type of text/n3, text/turtle or application/rdf+xml ;
>  c. in the head: using a link element to refer to another document.
>      - pros of 2.b. and 2.c.: NIF works well
>          - The offset-based recipe only need to have a tiny extension so that offset 0 stands just before the '<' of "<body... "
>          - The hash-based recipe only needs to be tweaked a little.

More I think about NIF which references location based on its character
offset (please correct me if I'm wrong) I think it's solution that will
not work. Even simple edit in an underlying HTML document will break up
all existing annotations.

> We discussed a lot about this 3.a., 3.b. and 3.c., ... any comment/idea for the specific use case of ITS 2.0 is welcome 
> Whatever case we choose (String annotation or DOM node annotation), we are discussing about a new NIF recipe inspired by XPath 1.0 to create a URI for that fragment.

ITS 1.0 is used to attach data categories to element and attributes. So
anything what will be able to address DOM nodes of type Element and
Attribute should work. Supporting just DOM Text node is not necessary as
there is no corresponding XML representation.


  Jirka Kosek      e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz      http://xmlguru.cz
       Professional XML consulting and training services
  DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
 OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member

Received on Thursday, 21 June 2012 13:41:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:31:45 UTC