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

My vote is for Option 1.

[I am a man of few words ;-) ]

I think it is important we put a (non-binding) marker in the ground and
move forward. I would imagine that the number of implementations (or
currently in-development implementations) is small and thus the opportunity
to be "flight of foot" whilst legacy is minimal.

Phil
Twitter: philinthecloud
Skype: philviathecloud


On 12 Aug 2013, at 07:43, "Felix Sasaki" <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
>

************************************************************
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.
************************************************************

Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2013 19:42:22 UTC