W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > April 2013

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

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 15:22:43 +0200
Message-ID: <516EA223.9020000@w3.org>
To: Sebastian Hellmann <hellmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
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>
Thanks, Sebastian. Is now updated at
http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its/rdf-content/its-rdf.rdf
Dave, can you check whether this is ok, and if yes, update
http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/ITS-RDF_mapping

Thanks,

Felix

Am 17.04.13 14:54, schrieb Sebastian Hellmann:
> 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 13:23:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:32:07 UTC