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

Felix,
Yes and Yes.  Maintaining the turlte can be low priority, we need 
something formatted as a W3C note to accompany the RDF/XML, that we keep 
consistent with the RDF comment that Sebastian suggested.

What were you using to edit the RDF/XML.

Sorry I couldn't make the call, but it looks like we are making strong 
progress.

Good interest here at the Open Data on the Web event from the GDL 
working group in taking further.

cheers,
Dave


On 24/04/2013 12:55, Felix Sasaki wrote:
> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>