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

Re: Let's drop RDFa in the requirements !

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 14:10:53 +0200
Message-ID: <CAL58czov0_UV9G_OFJQcLGw+8YCKDF2HSOZPUUA3Yo=gU-XL0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@inria.fr>
Cc: David Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>, Multilingual Web LT Public List <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>, public-ontolex@w3.org
Hi Maxime,

have a look at our charter
http://www.w3.org/2011/12/mlw-lt-charter.html
which requires that we develop an RDFa serialization and a microdata
version of our metadata. We do not say that we will provide an XML version.
Of course many people here discuss XML issues since this is the "legacy" of
ITS 1.0, which will continue IMO - but it will be brought to other
serializations as well.

There is already a good level of coordination between the Ontolex group and
MLW-LT - just have a look of the overlap in participants
https://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=53116&public=1
including you, I, Dave, Paul, ...

Also, I think the data categories targeted by MLW-LT are quite different
than the goals of ontolex - MLW-LT does not plan to define lexicon models
at all. Note also that Paul is co-chairing the Dublin workshop.

Felix

2012/5/2 Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@inria.fr>

> 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"]
>
>
> 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 <http://twitter.com/Max_Lefrancois>
>



-- 
Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 12:11:25 UTC

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