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

Felix, Jörg, all

I am not opposed in principle to the pragmatic solution (1)
And you are right that my advocacy for 2a results from prioritizing the
proper standardization point of view, i.e. choosing from the feasible
actions the one that seems the closest to the ideal proper solution.

If the continued discussion confirms that 2a indeed requires significantly
bigger effort than 1, I am prepared to give up the "right" solution for the
pragmatically better feasible one.

It does not seem a big deal to me to support multiple uris as parameters,
but I stand to be corrected on this, as I do not have insight into details
of the affected implementations.

Cheers
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 6:31 PM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi Jörg, all,
>
> Am 13.08.13 19:19, schrieb Jörg Schütz:
>
>  Hi Felix and all,
>>
>> Independently of the EU funding timeline
>>
>
> We cannot discuss this without the EU funding timeline in mind, since if
> we push ITS2 after December 2013, the whole standardization effort will
> fail.
>
>
>  , and after some indepth discussions with possible industrial early
>> adopters of ITS 2.0
>>
>
> Could you please name these adopters? It is hard to decide how much weight
> to give to opinions if you don't know who is making the statement - in
> addition to Bioloom.
>
>
>  , 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.
>>
>
> There are a lot of specifications in many technical areas that are
> defining things indepth - without being normative. So I can't follow this
> argument.
>
>
>  In this case, it should rather be handled like the XLIFF mapping, i.e.
>> remove it from the ITS 2.0 specification.
>>
>
> We did promise the following in 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."
>
> I see this as an argument to keep things as is, since we name "a
> conversion to RDF". We never had XLIFF mappings in scope for the spec
> itself. So I can't hardly follow the comparison.
> Also, from a "community building" point of view, it will be very harmful
> to first have the NIF feature inside ITS 2.0 and then pull it out again.
>
>
>  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.
>>
>
> I would see a lot of harm, see the "community building" above. Just think
> of the time the NIF community with Sebastian in the center (but not only
> him, see e.g. contributors to the test suite in guithub) already put into
> NIF in ITS - with the current URIs.
>
>
>
>> (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.
>>
>
> Agree.
>
>
>
>> (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.
>>
>
> Here I disagree, see my response
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-multilingualweb-**
> lt/2013Aug/0021.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Aug/0021.html>
> to David's mail.
>
>
>
>> I hope this helps a bit in finding an eventual community supported
>> solution.
>>
>
> It does, thank you for your thoughts.
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>
>
>
>> 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<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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>