Re: [All] ITS2 3rd last call issues, please attend 4 September / 11 September call and / or provide input via mail

Hi Phil,

Am 28.08.13 20:10, schrieb Phil Ritchie:
> Felix, All
>
> I'm aware you instructed to not reply to this thread. However, I am 
> just clarifying what response is required.

Sure.

>
> In my interpretation, the RDF working group are making comment on 
> another format/representation which we do not "own". Therefore, we are 
> somewhat in the middle of wanting to ideally have RDF WG consent but 
> also NIF consent. In stating a preference or opposition for one of the 
> RDF WG proposals are we expressing the opposite with NIF. Are we stuck 
> in the middle?

No. Since NIF (I learned that from discussions with Sebastian) does not 
require to use fragment URIs of the form example.com/document1#char=3,4
the offset information is conveyed by the predicats nif:beginIndex and 
nif:endIndex. Also, the testing (which VistaTEC / TDC / DFKI passed) via 
validate.jar at
https://github.com/finnle/ITS-2.0-Testsuite/tree/master/its2.0/nif-conversion/sparqltests
does not rely on the "#char" scheme to be in the URI. It rather tests 
the proper predicates and classes.

So in summary: we won't break NIF by deciding about this. In fact, a 
service that Sebastian provides
nlp2rdf.lod2.eu/nif-ws.php?informat=text&input=My+favourite+actress+is+Natalie+Portman&outformat=turtle&prefix=http://myapp.org/doc5/
allows you to specify a prefix for the output URI. In the above example 
(which is from Sebastian) there is no "#" in the prefix - so you won't 
encounter the fragment identifier issue.


>
> If we support an RDF WG proposal but have no direct influence to 
> action it (assuming we need NLP2RDF for that) are we forced to just 
> "ignore" RDF WG in order to move forward? I guess we can say "we like 
> proposal X and will work to achieve it but cannot give a timeline".

We can replace examples in our spec - e.g.
http://example.com/exampledoc.html#char=11,17
by an URI with either with the new frag ID scheme or by a query string
http://example.com/?inputdoc=exampledoc.html&char=11,17


>
> Maybe I am over-thinking this.

Not at all - your questions make a lot of sense and it is good to 
discuss these. In the ITS2 spec we don't talk about the fragment 
identifier scheme in any location - so we can't break anything. By 
replacing examples with either option 1) or 2) we would be fine.

Best,

Felix

>
> Phil.
>
>
>
>
> -----Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote: -----
> To: "public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
> From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
> Date: 08/28/2013 05:34PM
> Subject: [All] ITS2 3rd last call issues, please attend 4 September / 
> 11 September call and / or provide input via mail
>
> Hi all,
>
> to leave the third last call period, we need to resolve our two issues 
> (or others that might come up until 10 September - end of the last call):
>
> mlw-lt-track-ISSUE-131: "URI scheme used in NIF conversion"
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Aug/0058.html
>
> mlw-lt-track-ISSUE-132: Clarifications in "8.16 Localization Quality 
> Issue" and appendix "C Values for the Localization Quality Issue Type" 
> [MLW-LT Standard Draft]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Aug/0059.html
>
> *Please do *not* reply to this mail. *Please reply to the two mails 
> cited above to state your opinions on the issues.
>
> For mlw-lt-track-ISSUE-131: "URI scheme used in NIF conversion"
> we have three options:
> - register an URI scheme for the output of the NIF conversion
> - use URIs with the character offest in the query part
> - do nothing
>
> For mlw-lt-track-ISSUE-132: LQI clarifications, we have edits that 
> Arle will send out shortly. These got input from Yves and I and 
> partially (in a previou version) also from Christian and Phil. Please 
> look out for Arle's mail (it will come today or tomorrow) and reply to 
> it with comments on the edits.
>
> Deadline for both would be 5 September - see also
> http://www.w3.org/2013/08/28-mlw-lt-minutes.html#item04
>
> At the 4 September WG call, we want to express a "working group" 
> response to the RDF WG - so please make your opinion explicit via mail 
> and / or on the call. Even if you are not implementing the NIF 
> conversion, think about the consequences of three options time wise. 
> Having an explicit record of the WGs statement is important for the 
> transition.
>
> 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.
> ************************************************************
>