Re: [Relevant for all] options for the RDF representation of ITS 2.0

Hi Arle, all,

Am 12.08.13 09:43, schrieb Arle Lommel:
> Hi Felix et al.,
>
> I think we need some more information to better understand the 
> implications of the three options you present. So here are my initial 
> thoughts and questions:
>
> *Option 1*
> This is the lowest hurdle, correct? We would keep the existing NIF 
> references and simply make them non-normative, or is there anything 
> more involved?

No.

>
> The drawbacks would be that a a non-normative section might be ignored 
> by implementers and that a non-normative section written as though it 
> were normative would be a little odd.

Correct.

With this option we would have the timeline described at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Aug/0009.html

>
>
> *Option 2a*
> What is involved in 2a? Is it just copying the files and declaring 
> them as part of ITS, or is there more involved?

Copying the ontology file, and changing the NIF URIs to be in the W3C 
namespace.

>
> This would, I would assume, create a mandatory new last call since 
> actually declaring this NIF content as a normative part of ITS 2.0 
> would be a major substantive change. (A mapping is one thing, but this 
> is adding new stuff.)

Correct. But note that also option 1 has the need for another last call. 
See again the 0009 mail
"1) publish a new LC draft 15 August (previous published draft was LC 
draft 21 May)"

>
> I'm also worried about what this does to NIF in the long run. If we 
> declare this NIF content part of ITS 2.0, what happens when NIF itself 
> develops further?

We would need to make explicit that this approach of using NIF is 
specific to a specific version of NIF. And only we would maintain that 
version. Probably it is better to call it NIF+ITS than NIF, since we 
"own" it - not the NIF community. Of course we want to work closely with 
them to assure mutual agreement about this.

> It would seem we are creating, at the least, a fork in NIF (of between 
> NIF and this NIFish stuff we would create), unless we have some sort 
> of mutual maintenance agreement (but that would lead us right back to 
> the problem we face now, would it not? that W3C does not want to be 
> bound to external specifications with problematic IP).

We won't be bound to an external spec with this option, see above.

>
> Maybe you see a way to avoid some of the possible problems I can 
> foresee here (and I assume you've probably thought this through much 
> better than I have and probably consulted with Sebastian Hellmann), so 
> what are your thoughts for /how/ this would work and how we avoid 
> potential problems.
>
>
> *Option 2b*
> Unless someone has an idea that is just waiting and ready to go at 
> this point, I would not pursue this option given our deadlines. We 
> simply don't have time to develop something that does what NIF does 
> internal to our group.
>
>
> In short, I think we need to understand the broader implications of 
> each approach before we come to consensus and many of those 
> implications depend on W3C positions that we aren't in a position to 
> know yet. But if you know, Felix, maybe you can give some more 
> guidance here.

I hope above guidance helped, let me know otherwise.

Best,

Felix

>
> Best,
>
> Arle
>
> On 2013 Aug 12, at 08:42 , Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org 
> <mailto:fsasaki@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> this mail is relevant for the general progress of ITS 2.0. Please 
>> have a look even if you are not interested in the RDF representation 
>> of ITS 2.0.
>>
>> At
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Aug/0009.html
>>
>> I had explained changes to be done to move ITS 2.0. forward. The 
>> change "make NIF a *non* normative reference" is actually just one 
>> option to reply to this requirement from our charter
>> http://www.w3.org/2012/09/mlw-lt-charter.html
>>
>> "The MultilingualWeb-LT WG will assure that the metadata approach 
>> being developed is allowing a conversion to RDF, to foster 
>> integration of MultilingualWeb-LT metadata into the Semantic Web."
>>
>> This requirement does not say that we define a normative approach to 
>> allow for that conversion. My mail at
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Aug/0009.html
>> was suggesting to use NIF as the non normative approach.
>>
>> With this mail I want to bring all options clearly in front of the 
>> working group and see what you think. Please have a look at let's 
>> decide on Wednesday how to move forward. Until then, the edit 
>> announced in the 0009 mail is on hold.
>>
>> So the options are
>>
>> 1) Have a non-normative reference to NIF, as suggested in the 0009 mail
>>
>>
>>
>> 2) Intent to have a standardized, that is normative RDF 
>> representation of ITS2. This could then not be NIF. It could be
>>
>>
>> 2a) something based on NIF, e.g. moving the six URIs that we rely on 
>> (+ the ontology file?)
>>
>>         1. 
>> http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#Context
>>         2. 
>> http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#RFC5147String
>>         3. 
>> http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#beginIndex
>>         4. 
>> http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#endIndex
>>         5. 
>> http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#referenceContext
>>         6. 
>> http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#isString
>>         7. The ontology file that defines these URIs (= RDF classes +
>>            properties)
>> http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core/version-1.0/nif-core.ttl
>>
>> into the W3C namespace and define the URIs + the ontology as 
>> normative part of ITS2. But it could also be
>>
>>
>> 2b) something completely different, yet to be defined. Issue 
>> https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/18 
>> made clear that it cannot be RDFa.
>>
>>
>> Above options are hard to evaluate since we have the EU funding based 
>> timeline. But to move forward we need a working group opinion. Please 
>> state your thoughts in this thread.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Felix
>>
>