- From: Sebastian Hellmann <hellmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:54:41 +0200
- To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- CC: Phil Ritchie <philr@vistatec.ie>, Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, MultilingualWeb-LT Working Group <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <516E9B91.1070201@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
Hi Felix, I had another look at the new version. There is a small, but important difference between DatatypeProperties and xsd:anyURI, see here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2010Jul/0395.html (see Axel Polleres answer) In your case however you want to refer to the the rdf:resources, so anything with xsd:anyURI should be owl:ObjectProperty with no rdfs:range: itsrdf:taAnnotatorsRef a owl:DatatypeProperty ; rdfs:range xsd:anyURI . should be: itsrdf:taAnnotatorsRef a owl:ObjectProperty . This implies per definition, that the Object has to be an rdf:resource and a valid URI. I am not sure, whether xsd:anyURI covers IRI's as well, but owl:ObjectProperty should be compatible IIRC. All the best, Sebastian Am 17.04.2013 12:31, schrieb Felix Sasaki: > P.S. again: with feedback from Sebastian (thanks a lot for that!), I > made an update to the ontology. This doesn't influence the examples > below (at Dave: we need to update the wiki then, if you agree). > > - 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. >>> ************************************************************ >>> >> > -- Dipl. Inf. Sebastian Hellmann Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig Projects: http://nlp2rdf.org , http://linguistics.okfn.org , http://dbpedia.org/Wiktionary , http://dbpedia.org Homepage: http://bis.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/SebastianHellmann Research Group: http://aksw.org
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 12:55:21 UTC