Re: ISSUE-119: ITS RDF Ontology creation [MLW-LT Standard Draft]

Hi Jirka, Felix, Sebastian, all,

I've updated ITS-RDF ontology as follows:

1) I agree with Felix's comment to remove custom XML schema types for 
attributes as RDf platforms in general don't validate against these, 
instead just specifying the simple XML schema type as appropriate, e.g. 
xsd:string, xsd:anyURI, xsd:decimal, xsd:nonNegativeInteger, xsd:integer

2) for data categories with standoff markup I've introduced a class to 
allow the correct grouping of indivdual attiributes to the a specfic 
item. These calsses are ProvRecord and LocalizationQualityIssue

3) for annotatorsRef I have just introduced individual attributes for 
each data categoriy where it applies, namely: termAnnotatorsRef, 
taAnnotatorsRef, mtConfidenceAnnotatorsRef

4) I've omitted anything related to Ruby

I believe this is consistent with the NIF related text in the current draft.

I've attached the ontology as a Turtle file, and have updated the same on:
http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/ITS-RDF_mapping 
<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/ITS-RDF_mapping#Ontology_.28DRAFT.29> 


If we can firm up on this then I propose documenting it in a more 
accessible format as per W3C norms. In addition we will need some best 
practice guidance on using this ontology with at least both NIF and 
PROV-O. I'm happy to work on these also, though all other inputs welcome.

Regards,
Dave



On 29/03/2013 13:37, Jirka Kosek wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> on the last telcon I have been tasked to "refresh" and try to move
> forward some issues. Could you please implemented changes below into
> proposed ITS RDF Ontology.
>
> Thanks,
>
>     Jirka
>
> On 25.2.2013 9:04, MultilingualWeb-LT Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> mlw-lt-track-ISSUE-119: ITS RDF Ontology creation [MLW-LT Standard Draft]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/119
>>
>> Raised by: Felix Sasaki
>> On product: MLW-LT Standard Draft
>>
>> Dave started an ITS RDF Ontology. See
>> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/ITS-RDF_mapping#Ontology_.28DRAFT.29
>> This is useful for the NIF conversion.
>>
>> There was an offline discussion about this, including Dave, Leroy, Sebastian and I.
>>
>> Some thoughts about the ontology current at
>> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/ITS-RDF_mapping#Ontology_.28DRAFT.29
>>
>> - the ontology uses various RDF classes that are not defined, e.g. "itstype:its-taConfidence.type" is identified as a class via
>> "rdf:type itstype:its-taConfidence.type"
>> So *if* one want to use "itstype:its-taConfidence.type" as a class, you'd need also
>> itstype:its-taConfidence.type rdf:type rdf:Class
>>
>> - classes are normally written in upper case, so
>> "its-taConfidence.type" would be
>> "Its-taConfidence.type"
>>
>> - As said in the offline thread (sorry for the repetition, guys), I would not define such classes at all. It would be sufficient to define actually no class - just use NIF URIs, and then have statements like this
>>
>> someNIFBasedSubjectUri
>>  its:locQualityIssueComment[1] "'c'es' is unknown. Could be 'c'est'";
>>  its:locQualityIssueEnabled[1]="yes" ;
>>  its:locQualityIssueSeverity[1] "50";
>>  its:locQualityIssueType "misspelling".
>>
>> The RDF predicates would take as a domain a NIF URI, and as the range an XML literal (or HTML literal, if we use RDF 1.1).
>> This approach has also the advantage that you can convert the test suite output easily to RDF "instance" data.
>>
>> - Felix
>>
>>
>>