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

Re: Let's drop RDFa in the requirements !

From: Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@inria.fr>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 12:08:36 +0200 (CEST)
To: David Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>, Multilingual Web LT Public List <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Cc: public-ontolex@w3.org
Message-ID: <1354031150.251422.1335953316514.JavaMail.root@zmbs3.inria.fr>
Hi Dave, The MSW-CG and MLW-LT-XG members, my answers below ----- Mail original -----
> 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"] > > So other RDF models could exist to represent the simple fact that "a
> > fragment of text is identified as a named entity", depending on the
> > model choosen to represent ITS 2.0 with semantic web formalisms.
> > What
> > is the desirable semantic web model for ITS 2.0 ? What are the pros
> > and cons of each ?
> > I think that the MLW-LT XG should not bother with RDFa at all, for
> > three main reasons:
> > 1- I don't see any requirement that explicitly asks for semantic web
> > 2- It may be extremely confusing to have different conceptualization
> > in the same recommendation
> > 3- This is typically the kind of conceptualization decision about
> > lexical resources that the Multilingual Semantic Web Community Group
> > will shortly have to face, and I don't think it's a really good idea
> > to choose a semantic web model for ITS 2.0 too early as it might be
> > incompatible with their requirements.
> I agree that the objective of ITS isn't to add knowledge to the
> semantic web per se. Neither is it clear that OWL-based reasoning, or
> even RDFS inference addresses any real use cases in the ITS problem
> area. However, RDFa is an established model for annotating HTML with
> meta-data and for using such meta-data to make meaningful links to
> external resources. These are both recurring ITS requirements.
> So the question is why would we introduce a different meta-data
> mechanism for HTML if RDFa is sufficient and possibly already
> benefiting from existing tools and data management support?
> However, we should definitely engage with the MLSW community on this.
> Are there some key representative that we should be aiming to attract
> for the MLW-LOD workshop?
I add the public-ontolex@w3.org mailing list as a receipient of this mail, Paul Buitelaar and Philip Cimiano are the chairs of the community group. People from the MSW, are you going to the multilingual semantic web workshop linked open data workshop, Dublin, 11 June ? the registration form is open until 2012-05-09 here, http://www.multilingualweb.eu/en/documents/dublin-workshop/dublin-cfp . As I understood the community behind ITS1.0 is strongly based on the XML, so the needs and expertise of the members is mostly XML oriented... Using RDFa will lead to the design of two incompatible models for ITS2.0. put simply, one based on XML to annotates text fragments, and another based on RDF where text fragments can only be object of triples. I don't think the MLW-LT community would immediately benefit from a model in RDFa, and it might interfere with the job that is being done by the MSW community group. Once the working drafts of the MLW-LT and the MSW will be submitted, it will be fairly straightforward to propose a model for ITS2.0 that extends the one that MSW will produce. > cheers,
> Dave
> > So I suggest we drop RDFa in the requirements ( delete the two lines
> > that speak about RDFa ) , and let's let the Multilingual Semantic
> > Web
> > Community Group deal with the semantic web, the mapping of ITS
> > annotated XML documents into RDF, and the mapping between its-*
> > attributes and RDFa.
> > Regards,
> > Maxime Lefrançois
Kind regards, Maxime Lefrançois Ph.D. Student, INRIA - WIMMICS Team http://maxime-lefrancois.info @Max_Lefrancois
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 10:09:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:31:44 UTC