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

Hi Dave, all,

Am 05.09.13 13:19, schrieb Dave Lewis:
> 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.

I think there is no need to align that, but sure, we can try. Putting 
Sebastian explicitly into CC to see what he thinks.

> 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."

Thanks a lot for this, Dave - fits very well. I will send an offical WG 
response later today or tomorrow to the RDF WG saying that we have 
choosen option 2.

Best,

Felix

>
> 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.
>