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 18:53:07 +0200
Message-ID: <51780DF3.3000805@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 18:33, schrieb Dave Lewis:
> Felix,
> Yes and Yes.  Maintaining the turlte can be low priority, we need 
> something formatted as a W3C note to accompany the RDF/XML

Not 100% what you mean by note, but we can clarify later.

> , that we keep consistent with the RDF comment that Sebastian suggested.
>
> What were you using to edit the RDF/XML.

I used an XML editor and then processed with mindswap
http://tinyurl.com/bwu7yq4
to make sure the right OWL DL features are inferred. I had tried 
Protege, but the RDF/XML output looks rather weird.

Best,

Felix
>
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2013 16:53:45 UTC

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