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 15:24:02 +0200 (CEST)
To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Cc: David Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>, Multilingual Web LT Public List <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>, public-ontolex@w3.org
Message-ID: <376401107.255921.1335965042192.JavaMail.root@zmbs3.inria.fr>
Hi Felix, After the resolution of issue-2, I understood that microdata and RDFa was to play a very secondary role, and that custom HTML5 attributes were going to be the main metadata mechanism for HTML5. This is the main reason why I suggested to drop RDFa from the MLW-LT requirements to add them to the MSW requirements, as the MSW-CG deals with SemWeb formalisms. I understand now rereading the charter that a microdata and RDFa description of metadata is wanted, anyways, I'll be happy to contribute to the definition a model for ITS2.0 that is compatible with the MSW-CG model, and to the mapping between its-* attributes and RDFa/microdata markup. The data categories targeted by MLW-LT are indeed different than the goals of ontolex, the only data categories we need to be carefull are namedEntity and terminology, because the link that exists between a concept (potentially taken from an ontology) and a text fragment that mentions this concept is complex in the lemon model: Ontology Entity <-> Lexical Sense <-> Lexical Entry -> Lexical Form -> (Written) Representation Kind regards, Maxime Lefrançois Ph.D. Student, INRIA - WIMMICS Team http://maxime-lefrancois.info @Max_Lefrancois ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Felix Sasaki" <fsasaki@w3.org>
> À: "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
> Envoyé: Mercredi 2 Mai 2012 14:10:53
> Objet: Re: Let's drop RDFa in the requirements !
> 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
> --
> Felix Sasaki
> DFKI / W3C Fellow
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 13:24:58 UTC

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