Re: agenda+ referencing ontology (Re: ISSUE-119: ITS RDF Ontology creation [MLW-LT Standard Draft]) from Felix Sasaki on 2013-04-19 (public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org from April 2013)

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:04:02 +0200
To: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
CC: Sebastian Hellmann <hellmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>, public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org, rob brennan <rob.brennan@cs.tcd.ie>
Message-ID: <5170D042.6080007@w3.org>
P.S.: I added also some examples to
http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its/rdf-content/its-rdf.rdf
and
 From
  <itsrdf:taIdentRef rdf:resource="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dublin"/>
and
   <owl:ObjectProperty 
rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its/rdf#taIdentRef"/>
this is inferred
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dublin"> 
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#Thing"/> 
</rdf:Description>
see also
http://tinyurl.com/bwu7yq4

- Felix

Am 19.04.13 00:54, schrieb Felix Sasaki:
> Hi Sebastian, Dave, all,
>
> thanks a lot for the explanations, Sebastian.
>
> I changed taClassRef to be an annotation property, see
> http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its/rdf-content/its-rdf.rdf
> otherwise I left the RDF/XML as is, that is it uses owl:ObjectProperty 
> in the places discussed.
>
> Dave, does
> http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its/rdf-content/its-rdf.rdf
> work for you? I then would covert it to turtle and put it on the wiki 
> as well.
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>
> Am 18.04.13 23:41, schrieb Sebastian Hellmann:
>> Hi Dave,
>> OWL works quite funny, but a little bit unintuitive. Let's see an 
>> example based on http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_homepage
>> *Note* I attached a small list of changes, which should be made at 
>> the end, please don't overlook ;)
>> Another small note: "rdfs:property" -> "rdf:Property"
>>
>> In the example, we will always consider the following triple, which 
>> you can find on http://dbpedia.org/resource/Angela_Merkel , but 
>> exchange the schema.
>> The triple is:
>>
>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Angela_Merkel>  foaf:homepage <http://www.bundeskanzlerin.de/Webs/BK/EN/> .
>>
>> 1. With xsd:anyURI in the schema:
>> foaf:homepage rdf:type rdf:Property ;
>>      rdfs:range xsd:anyURI .
>> The triple would say, that Angela's homepage is a 41 character long URI:
>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Angela_Merkel>  foaf:homepage "http://www.bundeskanzlerin.de/Webs/BK/EN/" .
>> I am absolutely not sure how datatypes are validated by parsers and 
>> how parser will react to malformed URIs . Not sure, if they enforce 
>> anything.  I have also never seen this variant anywhere in use.
>>
>> inferred triples:
>> # none
>>
>>
>> 2. With rdfs:Resource:
>> foaf:homepage rdf:type rdf:Property ;
>>      rdfs:range rdfs:Resource  .
>> The object *must* be valid URI according to the RDF spec and also
>> The class resource, everything.
>> according to http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource
>> Also you should use <> again:
>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Angela_Merkel>  foaf:homepage <http://www.bundeskanzlerin.de/Webs/BK/EN/> .
>>
>> 3.  with owl:ObjectProperty:
>> foaf:homepage rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty .
>> Also the object *must* be  a valid URI, otherwise the parser will 
>> give a warning.
>> Being an ObjectProperty *implies* that 
>> <http://www.bundeskanzlerin.de/Webs/BK/EN/> is an owl:Thing , which 
>> is "The class of OWL individuals.", a rather technical definition. 
>> This could be anything, including a web site or homepage. Not that 
>> this is not a *requirement*, but it will be *inferred*, if needed.
>>
>> Inferred:
>> <http://www.bundeskanzlerin.de/Webs/BK/EN/>  rdf:type owl:Thing .
>>
>> 4. Full definition from http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/homepage
>>
>> <rdf:Property rdf:about="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/homepage"  
>> vs:term_status="stable" rdfs:label="homepage" rdfs:comment="A homepage
>> for some thing.">
>>      <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#ObjectProperty"/>
>>      <rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/page"/>
>>      <rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/isPrimaryTopicOf"/>
>>      <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#InverseFunctionalProperty"/>
>>      <!--  previously: rdfs:domain rdf:resource="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Agent"  -->
>>      <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#Thing"/>
>>      <rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Document"/>
>>      <rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"/>
>>    </rdf:Property>
>>
>> implicit triples expanded:
>>
>> ## by rdfs:domain (actually redundant, b)
>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Angela_Merkel>  rdf:type owl:Thing .
>> # previously (old rdf:sdomain)
>> #<http://dbpedia.org/resource/Angela_Merkel>  rdf:type foaf:Agent .
>>
>> ## by rdfs:range
>> <http://www.bundeskanzlerin.de/Webs/BK/EN/>  rdf:type owl:Thing .
>> <http://www.bundeskanzlerin.de/Webs/BK/EN/>  rdf:type foaf:Document .
>>
>> ## by superproperties:
>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Angela_Merkel>  foaf:page<http://www.bundeskanzlerin.de/Webs/BK/EN/>  .
>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Angela_Merkel>  foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf<http://www.bundeskanzlerin.de/Webs/BK/EN/>  .
>>
>> ### some more are omitted
>>
>> This goes very much down to the basics and I really hope that I got 
>> everything correct.
>>
>>
>> Some notes, which hopefully do not get overead
>>
>> 1. taClassRef should be an annotation property
>> There is one more small change, which I also used for some of the NIF 
>> properties and was requested by Stanbol.
>> <http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its/rdf#taClassRef>  rdf:type owl:AnnotationProperty .
>> Whenever the Object is supposed to be an owl:Class, it can not per 
>> definition be an owl:Thing . Making taClassRef an AnnotationProperty 
>> makes all reasoners ignore it and nothing will be inferred.
>>
>> 2. Actually, you might want to consider to add rdfs:label and 
>> rdfs:comment and to add language tags to  "comments"@en and translate 
>> them to several language. (this is fine tuning however)
>> 3. other ontologies use rdfs:isDefinedBy , I find this rather strange 
>> with ontologies that use the  '#'
>> <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#AllDifferent> rdfs:isDefinedBy 
>> <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
>> It is kind of self-explanatory.
>>
>> All the best,
>> Sebastian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 17.04.2013 17:14, schrieb Dave Lewis:
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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 Friday, 19 April 2013 05:04:33 UTC