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: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:14:16 +0100
Message-ID: <516EBC48.7000203@cs.tcd.ie>
To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
CC: rob brennan <rob.brennan@cs.tcd.ie>
Felix, Sebastian,

I'm not sure I follow the reasoning behind this change. I've tried to 
outline my concerns below so it would be great if you could clarify this 
for us.

If we assume that any instances following this ontology originally are 
converted from an XML or HTML file with ITS annotation, then there is no 
guarantee that the URIs point to an OWL instance - we don't make any 
such restrictions in the spec. They could just point to a web page or a 
UUID or what ever else makes sense in the context of the original file.

My understanding of owl:ObjectProperty however is that it must point to 
an OWL instance, i.e. something that is an instance of an owl:Thing, so 
using the ontology declaration:

itsrdf:taAnnotatorsRef
     a owl:ObjectProperty .

would not actually be true in valid ITS cases where the URI referred to 
a resource that is not an OWL instance.

That was my motivation for specifying this as just:

:taAnnotatorsRef rdf:type rdfs:property;
     rdfs:range xsd:anyURI .

since it doesn't preclude either of the owl:DatatypeProperty or the 
owl:ObjectProperty options. I see this as necessary since we won't know 
which one is appropriate without actually de-referencing the URI. 
Perhaps such a check could be a final optional step in the ITS-NIF 
mapping - but its more of an optimisation I think?

cheers,
Dave









On 17/04/2013 14:22, Felix Sasaki wrote:
> 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 15:10:51 UTC

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