mlw-lt-track-ISSUE-119: ITS RDF Ontology creation [MLW-LT Standard Draft]

mlw-lt-track-ISSUE-119: ITS RDF Ontology creation [MLW-LT Standard Draft]

Raised by: Felix Sasaki
On product: MLW-LT Standard Draft

Dave started an ITS RDF Ontology. See
This is useful for the NIF conversion.

There was an offline discussion about this, including Dave, Leroy, Sebastian and I.

Some thoughts about the ontology current at

- the ontology uses various RDF classes that are not defined, e.g. "itstype:its-taConfidence.type" is identified as a class via
"rdf:type itstype:its-taConfidence.type"
So *if* one want to use "itstype:its-taConfidence.type" as a class, you'd need also
itstype:its-taConfidence.type rdf:type rdf:Class

- classes are normally written in upper case, so
"its-taConfidence.type" would be

- As said in the offline thread (sorry for the repetition, guys), I would not define such classes at all. It would be sufficient to define actually no class - just use NIF URIs, and then have statements like this

 its:locQualityIssueComment[1] "'c'es' is unknown. Could be 'c'est'";   
 its:locQualityIssueEnabled[1]="yes" ;
 its:locQualityIssueSeverity[1] "50";
 its:locQualityIssueType "misspelling".

The RDF predicates would take as a domain a NIF URI, and as the range an XML literal (or HTML literal, if we use RDF 1.1).
This approach has also the advantage that you can convert the test suite output easily to RDF "instance" data.

- Felix

Received on Monday, 25 February 2013 08:04:15 UTC