Re: agenda+ referencing ontology (Re: ISSUE-119: ITS RDF Ontology creation [MLW-LT Standard Draft])

Felix

Does NIF have wider adoption than RDF? I understand from what I've read that it is maybe easier to read, more compact?

Phil



On 17 Apr 2013, at 08:22, "Felix Sasaki" <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi Dave, Phil, all,
> 
> I have put the ontology on the w3c server. The namespace 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its/rdf#
> or
> http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its/rdf#translate
> resolve with 303 "see other" to
> http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its/rdf-content/its-rdf.rdf (in RDF/XML version)
> or
> http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its/rdf-content/its-rdf.html
> in the latter we can put some more documentation, but for the time being what is here is sufficient.
> 
> Can you discuss today whether people would agree with this? Note that we then should define the namespace for the ontology also in
> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#notation
> and this would mean that we reference the ontology normatively. If people agree with this, could you give me an action item to add the ontology URI during todays call?
> 
> Note for all implementers: this wouldn't influence you only if you implement the NIF conversion. Currently this is Sebastian and I - anybody else?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Felix
> 
> Am 17.04.13 09:04, schrieb Phil Ritchie:
>> Dave
>> 
>> I certainly want to work on transforming some Xliff with ITS LQI and Provenance data into RDF so I'd like to chip in with this.
>> 
>> I'm not sure I have all of the understanding necessary though - particularly around schema creation and validation.
>> 
>> Would it be worthwhile having a conf. call to get on the same page? I should be on today's call so we could chat then.
> 
> I would like to participate in that discussion - I can't be on the call today. But feel free to to discuss & hopefully we can bring up the topic again next week, or on a separate, dedicated call - would you be available Phil?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Felix
> 
> 
>> 
>> Phil
>> Twitter: philinthecloud
>> Skype: philviathecloud
>> 
>> 
>> On 17 Apr 2013, at 01:38, "Dave Lewis" <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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 
>>> 
>>> 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
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> <itsrdf.ttl>
>> 
>> ************************************************************
>> VistaTEC Ltd. Registered in Ireland 268483. 
>> Registered Office, VistaTEC House, 700, South Circular Road, 
>> Kilmainham. Dublin 8. Ireland. 
>> 
>> The information contained in this message, including any accompanying 
>> documents, is confidential and is intended only for the addressee(s). 
>> The unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, or alteration of this 
>> message is strictly forbidden. If you have received this message in
>> error please notify the sender immediately.
>> ************************************************************
>> 
> 
************************************************************
VistaTEC Ltd. Registered in Ireland 268483. 
Registered Office, VistaTEC House, 700, South Circular Road, 
Kilmainham. Dublin 8. Ireland. 

The information contained in this message, including any accompanying 
documents, is confidential and is intended only for the addressee(s). 
The unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, or alteration of this 
message is strictly forbidden. If you have received this message in
error please notify the sender immediately.
************************************************************