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

Hi all,

most seem to be inclined to Option 1, but rewriting the normative NIF
section to become non-normative has complexities that Dave described very
well.
1 seems the lowest hurdle but actually changes a lot in the standardization
sense.

I'd be for at least exploring the option 2a. I'd not be worried about the
ITS and NIF communities impedance, we would just use a stable w3c hosted
snapshot of the provisions and as result almost nothing would need to
change in the spec
All features would remain normative so non of the implementers' effort so
far would be "vasted"

As both 1 and 2a require a new LC, I would think that 2a is the ideal
solution. we can call the six uris and ontology a NIF snapshot for ITS2
purposes or whatever, so that no mutual maintenance dependencies could even
be suspcted.. Also the Univeristy of Leipzig links are specific to a
version and will not change, even when NIF develops a new version with
different provisions..

I would not even consider 2b

Cheers and talk to you tomorrow
dF


Dr. David Filip
=======================
LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS
University of Limerick, Ireland
telephone: +353-6120-2781
*cellphone: +353-86-0222-158*
facsimile: +353-6120-2734
mailto: david.filip@ul.ie


On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Tadej Stajner <tadej.stajner@ijs.si> wrote:

> Hi, Felix, all,
> well, since NIF has a lifecycle, tempo and support independent of ITS, I'd
> go for option 1 - a non-normative reference. Moving (2a) it to a new
> namespace seemingly implies a dependency on W3C, and I'm not sure what that
> would do to their process. I think the organizational and operational
> unknowns can get complex with this.
>
> For ITS2.0 and its users, my opinion is that having the reference
> non-normative instead of normative wouldn't make a difference in terms of
> adoption.
>
> -- Tadej
>
>
> On 8/12/2013 1:42 AM, Felix Sasaki 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<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<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<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<http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#Context>
>>          2. http://persistence.uni-**leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/**
>> ontologies/nif-core#**RFC5147String<http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#RFC5147String>
>>          3. http://persistence.uni-**leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/**
>> ontologies/nif-core#beginIndex<http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#beginIndex>
>>          4. http://persistence.uni-**leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/**
>> ontologies/nif-core#endIndex<http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#endIndex>
>>          5. http://persistence.uni-**leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/**
>> ontologies/nif-core#**referenceContext<http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#referenceContext>
>>          6. http://persistence.uni-**leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/**
>> ontologies/nif-core#isString<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<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<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
>>
>>
>
>