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, 24 Apr 2013 13:55:20 +0200
Message-ID: <5177C828.6050600@w3.org>
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>
Hi Dave,

Am 24.04.13 13:51, schrieb Dave Lewis:
> Hi Sebastian, Felix,
> Thanks for this. That answers my query about owl:ObjectProperty 
> (sebastien's point 3), so I'm happy to go with that.
>
> I need to look at the suggestion on annotationProperties for that text 
> analysis still, I'll get back to you on that.
>
> What's the best way to make the changes, in the RDF/XML or the Turle 
> on the wiki?

The best way would be in the RDF/XML. Or if Turtle is better, then download
http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its/rdf-content/its-rdf.rdf
and convert it to turtle. I'm happy to do the job of adding your 
comments from the wiki later.

> Lets still aim to get this wrapped up before Bled.

+1. I'm also wondering wether we should add a column with the ontology 
definitions (once stable) to
http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#list-of-elements-and-attributes
what do you think? Again I'd be happy to do that.

Best,

Felix
>
> cheers,
> Dave
>
> p.s. sebastian you mentioned some attached corrections, but I didn't 
> see an attachment on Felix's forward and didn't gget the original for 
> some reason - can you resend?
> On 19/04/2013 06:04, Felix Sasaki wrote:
>> 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 Wednesday, 24 April 2013 11:55:53 UTC

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