[ISSUE-131] update to NIF mapping section in spec re comments from RDF WG

Following decision on the 4th December call to opt for a query style URL 
for the NIF string in RDF (which will also be supported in NIF) when 
defining the mapping the following need to be changed in the spec:

1) all occurrences of RDF URLs with #char or #xpath fragments to be 
changed to a query style as suggested by the RDF group and expanded on 
by Felix in 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Sep/0000.html 

i.e. all fragment identifiers for NIF strings in annex F and G should be 
changed from, e.g.:

http://example.com/exampledoc.html#char=0,11
or
http://example.com/exampledoc.html#xpath(/html/body[1]/h2[1]/text()[1])

to:
http://example.com/myitsservice?input=http://example.com/exampldoc.html&  <http://example.com/myitsservice?input=http://example.com/exampldoc.html&char=0,29>char=0,11
or
http://example.com/myitsservice?input=http://example.com/exampldoc.html&  <http://example.com/myitsservice?input=http://example.com/exampldoc.html&char=0,29>xpath=/html/body[1]/h2[1]/text()[1]

For the example thehttp://example.com/myitsservice  <http://example.com/myitsservice?input=http://example.com/exampldoc.html&char=0,29>
  is better thanhttp://www.w3.org/its  <http://www.w3.org/its?resource=http://example.com/exampldoc.html&char=0,29>  as suggested in the original post - the latter might confuse people that
there is an actual w3c service supporting this.

However, Felix, Sebastien, could you liaise on if we should use 'input' rather than 'resource' for the parameter name.
It doesn't matter which for implementation, but we should try and be consistent between the exmaples in the ITS2.0
spec and what is used in the NIF spec and associated examples.

one other associated question is, as we are using the query type to get around the limitations ofrfc 5147
char fragment in working with XML and HTML, is it still appropriate after the above change to type the NIF string in the example with
the subclass nif:RFC5147String? Sebastien? e.g.

http://example.com/myitsservice?input=http://example.com/exampldoc.html&  <http://example.com/myitsservice?input=http://example.com/exampldoc.html&char=0,29>char=0,11
  rdf:type nif:RFC5147String;

2) Once this is fixed we need to update the NIF part of the test suite and tests rerun by Felix, Leroy and Phil

3) Add the following suggested note wording to the end of Annex
"Note: NIF allows URL for a String resource to be referenced as URIs that are fragments of the original document in the form:
http://example.com/exampledoc.html#char=0,11
or
http://example.com/exampledoc.html#xpath(/html/body[1]/h2[1]/text()[1])

Though this offers a potentially convenient mechanism for linking NIF resources in RDF back to the original document, the char
fragment is defined currently only for text/plain while the xpath fragment is not defined for HTML. Therefore this URL
recipe does fulfil the ITS requirements to support both XML and HTML and the aim of this mapping to produce resources adhering
to the Linked Data principle of dereferenceablility. The future definition and registration of these fragment types, while a potentially
attractive feature, is beyond the scope of this specification."

cheers,
Dave

  


  <http://example.com/myitsservice?input=http://example.com/exampldoc.html&char=0,29>





On 03/09/2013 09:14, Felix Sasaki wrote:
> 1) last call item "RDF - NIF conversion". See
> https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/131
> and these mails
> Phil 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Sep/0001.html 
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Aug/0066.html 
>
>
> Dave
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Aug/0067.html 
>
>
> Felix
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Aug/0068.html 
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Sep/0000.html 
>
>
> Goal: decide about the option 1) or 2) or something else (see a 
> variation of option 2) in 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Sep/0000.html 
>
> IMPORTANT: even if you are not implementing ITS <> NIF, please state 
> your opinion since tomorrow want want to form a working group opinion, 
> to be able to move forward.