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

Hi Felix and all,

Independently of the EU funding timeline, and after some indepth 
discussions with possible industrial early adopters of ITS 2.0, I would 
suggest to follow your proposed solution 2a). The reasons are:

(1) Having a non-normative section on NIF (i.e. solution 1) looks 
apparently inappropriate because of the depth of the already existing 
description. In this case, it should rather be handled like the XLIFF 
mapping, i.e. remove it from the ITS 2.0 specification. This solution 
would give NIF a less prominent position, and does not reflect the 
continuous discussions on adopting the NIF approach in ITS. Therefore it 
would be something like a "graceful degradation", i.e. it wouldn't harm 
but we would lose momentum.

(2) Since we will have yet another LC anyway, a solution on how to deal 
with NIF doesn't have an influence on the overall W3C process of ITS 2.0.

(3) Adopting the proposed 6 URIs and the ontology of NIP represents a 
relatively stable and approved (through the existing implementations) 
release of NIF which is mostly appropriate to normatively demonstrate 
its fitness for deployment, although in the future it would represent 
only a certain NIF evolution branch. Here, we have to see how the W3C 
URIs could be maintained to benefit from future NIF incarnations and 
developments, for example through certain services that support 
evolutionary states.

I hope this helps a bit in finding an eventual community supported solution.

Talk to you tomorrow, and all the best,

Jörg

On Aug 12, 2013 at 08:42 (CEST), 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
>
>
> 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
>

-- 
*Prof. Dr. Jörg Schütz* *|* bioloom group *|* Bahnhofstr. 12 *|* D-66424 
Homburg *|* Fon +49-6841-756-338 *|* Mobile +49-170-801-9982 *|* 
joerg.schuetz@bioloom.de

*bioloom group* *|* Vertreten durch / Represented by: Prof. Dr. Jörg 
Schütz *|* Sitz / Register: Homburg *|* USt-IdNr. / Tax-Id.: DE261087278 
*|* Web: www.bioloom.de

Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2013 17:19:36 UTC