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

P.S.: here an example how a SPARQL query using both NIF and the ITS2 
ontology would look like:

SELECT ?entities  ?string ?reference
WHERE { ?entities <http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its/rdf#taIdentRef> 
?reference.
               ?entities 
<http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#anchorOf> ?string.}

and the output:

entities: http://example.com/exampledoc.html#char=11,17
string: Dublin
reference: http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dublin

- Felix

Am 17.04.13 10:36, schrieb Felix Sasaki:
> Hi Phil,
>
> Am 17.04.13 09:31, schrieb Phil Ritchie:
>> Felix
>>
>> Does NIF have wider adoption than RDF?
>
> NIF is an RDF based format. That is, the relation betwen NIF and RDF 
> is like between XML and XHTML, or XML and XLIFF.
>
> We use NIF in ITS2 to connect ITS information in markup (XML, HTML5) 
> with an RDF representation. See
>
> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#conversion-to-nif
> and a full example input HTML5 at
> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#EX-HTML-whitespace-normalization
> RDF output using NIF and the ITS2 ontology at
> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/examples/nif/EX-nif-conversion-output.xml
>
> The purpose of the ITS2 ontology is not to relate the RDF 
> representation to XML/RDF - NIF does that -, but to identify the ITS2 
> properties in an RDF manner, that is with RDF predicates.
>
> There is an interconnection between NIF and the ITS ontology. See this 
> example generated from a part of
> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/examples/nif/EX-nif-conversion-output.xml
>
> <http://example.com/exampledoc.html#char=11,17> nif:anchorOf "Dublin";
>     nif:referenceContext <http://example.com/exampledoc.html#char=0,29>;
>     a nif:RFC5147String;
>     itsrdf:taIdentRef <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dublin>;
>     itsrdf:translate "no";
>     itsrdf:withinText "yes".
>
> This statement
>
> <http://example.com/exampledoc.html#char=11,17> nif:anchorOf "Dublin".
>
> Relates the HTML5 document with the RDF representation. To ancor this 
> relation in the NIF RDF vocabulary we have this statement
>
> <http://example.com/exampledoc.html#char=11,17> a nif:RFC5147String.
>
> The actual ITS ontology statements are these three. They have the same 
> subject as the NIF statements above. That creates the forehand 
> mentioned relation between NIF and ITS2.
> <http://example.com/exampledoc.html#char=11,17> itsrdf:taIdentRef 
> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dublin>.
> <http://example.com/exampledoc.html#char=11,17> itsrdf:translate "no".
> <http://example.com/exampledoc.html#char=11,17> itsrdf:withinText "yes".
>
> Now, if you want to process this in SPARQL asking for all non 
> translatable items you would write something like this:
>
> SELECT ?translatableItems
> WHERE { ?translatableItems 
> <http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its/rdf#translate> "no" }
>
> and get as a result
> http://example.com/exampledoc.html#char=23,30
> http://example.com/exampledoc.html#char=11,17
>
> Does this make sense and would it work for what you have in mind?
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>
>> 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 
>> <mailto: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 
>>>> <mailto: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 
>>>>> <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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <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.
>> ************************************************************
>>
>