- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 13:21:25 +0200
- To: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
- CC: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org, Sebastian Hellmann <hellmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
- Message-ID: <52286935.3060507@w3.org>
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. >
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2013 11:21:57 UTC