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 16:13:27 +0200
Message-ID: <CAL58czo5dBN_6dfJ+TA1DKU-X_pbj5KKK_F3WBzaRKKSgrecXw@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
Thank you for your mail, Maxime, your analysis below is correct, I think
also wrt the data categories. I assume that you and Tadej are in a good
position to assure that this is well coordinated between Ontolex and MLW-LT.

Felix

2012/5/2 Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@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 <http://twitter.com/Max_Lefrancois>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *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 <http://twitter.com/Max_Lefrancois>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Felix Sasaki
> DFKI / W3C Fellow
>
>
>


-- 
Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 14:14:04 UTC

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