Re: NIF conversion sections

On 14.10.2012 8:17, Felix Sasaki wrote:

> sorry for the late reply. If we drop NIF and have no other conversion to
> RDF, we will need to change our charter again. See
> http://www.w3.org/2012/09/mlw-lt-charter
> "The MultilingualWeb-LT WG will assure that the metadata approach being
> developed is allowing a conversion to RDF, to foster integration of
> MultilingualWeb-LT metadata into the Semantic Web."

I'm not proposing to drop NIF, I'm proposing to move it into a separate
document produced by MLW-LT WG (most likely WG Note). I think that such
form of publication will be perfectly in line with the current charter.

> We had discussed RDFa as a helper for RDF conversion, but now know that i
> doesn't work and already have done a re-chartering for that. So I have a
> high motivation to keep NIF, since I don't see an alternative.
> 
> The algorithm (STEP1-STEP7 in
> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#conversion-to-nif
> )
> can be implemented actually as a very simple XSLT stylesheet
> http://www.w3.org/People/fsasaki/its20-general-processor/tools/generate-nif.xsl
> So I'm not sure what is so scary about that. Of course we can work on
> making the algorihm easier to read.

I meant that for uninformed reader (eg. HTML5 developer) NIF section
will be scary as such person wouldn't know all the history behind
devoloping such mapping, he will not understand why such complicated
representation is used instead of simple mechanism used in XML/HTML.

Also NIF is unknown term for 99,999999% of population so readers of our
spec will fail to read our spec effectively as they will stop on each
occurence of unknown NIF term, at least until they will decide to learn
more about NIF.

    Jirka

> 
> Best,
> 
> Felix
> 
> 2012/10/12 Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>
> 
>> On 12.10.2012 17:46, Felix Sasaki wrote:
>>
>>> apologies for not replying to various mails today, I'm on a train trip.
>>> Durin the trip I created the NIF conversion sections.
>>
>> Hi Felix,
>>
>> thanks for this. Given the novelty of NIF and fact that it hasn't yet
>> proved itself as a best practice for solving problems in many real-life
>> projects I suggest moving all NIF related things into separate document.
>> It can be put back into ITS 2.0 spec later when it proves that it has
>> interoperable implementations and it's used in fact.
>>
>> Many people in past months pushed for more simpler and easy to digest
>> specification, especially as we should cater for HTML community. Yes,
>> I'm known for not being overoptimistic about RDF, but even if try to be
>> RDFminded, I still see mapping section as quite scary for average reader.
>>
>>                                         Jirka
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>   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
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
> 
> 
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
  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
------------------------------------------------------------------