- From: Sebastian Hellmann <hellmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
- Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 11:39:35 +0200
- To: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
- CC: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
- Message-ID: <5229A2D7.8010901@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
Ok, here is the updated example file:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/375401/tmp/EX-nif-conversion-output.xml
There is a problem, however. [ and ] are not allowed in the query
component, so
rdf:resource="http://example.com/myitsservice?informat=html&intype=url&input=http://example.com/doc.html&xpath=/html/body[1]/h2[1]"
violates https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#appendix-A
pchar = unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims / ":" / "@"
query = *( pchar / "/" / "?" )
fragment = *( pchar / "/" / "?" )
pct-encoded = "%" HEXDIG HEXDIG
unreserved = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" / "~"
reserved = gen-delims / sub-delims
gen-delims = ":" / "/" / "?" / "#" / "[" / "]" / "@"
sub-delims = "!" / "$" / "&" / "'" / "(" / ")" / "*" / "+" / "," /
";" / "="
I am not an XPath expert. Could we do it like this?
xpath=/html/body/1/h2/1
NIF 2.0 has become quite delayed. I am one of the main coordinators,
which makes the standardization process lightweight, but I am also a
bottleneck. One of the reason for the delay is my timely contribution
here via email and meetings. I hope this is an acceptable trade off. The
consequence is, that most of NIF 2.0 is not well documented, yet,
although it is getting better day by day.
All the best,
Sebastian
Am 06.09.2013 11:05, schrieb Sebastian Hellmann:
> Hi Dave,
>
> Am 05.09.2013 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.:
>>
>> 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;
>
> I am currently working on a formal ABNF definition for this, but you
> can consider it to be like this in Java:
>
> String prefix =
> "http://example.com/myitsservice?informat=html&intype=url&input=http://example.com/exampldoc.html&"
> ;
> String identifier = "char=0,11" ;
> String uri = prefix+identifier ;
>
> // only identifier has to have the syntax given by the rdf:type
> validate ("nif:RFC5147String", identifier) ;
>
> So the syntax is only relevant for the identifier part. These would be
> alternative prefixes as well:
> String prefixOption1 =
> "http://example.com/myitsservice/informat/html/intype/url/input/http://example.com/exampldoc.html/"
> ;
> String prefixOption2 =
> "http://example.com/myitsservice?informat=html&intype=url&input=http://example.com/exampldoc.html#"
> ;
> String prefixOption3 =
> "http://example.com/myitsservice?informat=html&intype=url&input=http://example.com/exampldoc.html&"
> ;
>
> It really doesn't matter and all three are valid RDF (The first one is
> a bit awkward, of course)
>
>
>> 2) Once this is fixed we need to update the NIF part of the test suite and tests rerun by Felix, Leroy and Phil
>
> As written above, this is not strictly necessary, but it is nice to be
> consistent.
>
>> 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."
>
>
> Let's change this like this:
> http://example.com/doc.html#xpath(/html/body[1]/h2[1]/text()[1])
> maps to
> http://example.com/myitsservice?informat=html&intype=url&input=http://example.com/doc.html#char=0,11
>
> Note that RDF is ok, with all Fragment Ids:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-fragID
>
> RFC 3986 as well: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#page-24
>
>
>> The semantics of a fragment identifier are defined by the set of
>> representations that might result from a retrieval action on the
>> primary resource. The fragment's format and resolution is therefore
>> dependent on the media type [RFC2046] of a potentially retrieved
>> representation, even though such a retrieval is only performed if the
>> URI is dereferenced. If no such representation exists, then the
>> semantics of the fragment are considered unknown and are effectively
>> unconstrained.
>
>
>
> The text could be like this:
> "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/myitsservice?informat=html&intype=url&input=http://example.com/doc.html#char=0,11
> or
> http://example.com/doc.html#xpath(/html/body[1]/h2[1]/text()[1])
>
> This offers a convenient mechanism for linking NIF resources in RDF
> back to the original document. RDF treats URIs as opaque and does not
> impose any semantic constraints on the used fragment identifiers, thus
> enabling their usage in RDF in a consistent manner. However, fragment
> identifiers get interpreted according to the retrieved mime type, if a
> retrieval action occurs as is the case in Linked Data. 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."
>
> I will try to update the example in the spec as well.
>
> All the best,
> Sebastian
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> --
> Dipl. Inf. Sebastian Hellmann
> Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig
> Events:
> * NLP & DBpedia 2013 (http://nlp-dbpedia2013.blogs.aksw.org, Extended
> Deadline: *July 18th*)
> * LSWT 23/24 Sept, 2013 in Leipzig (http://aksw.org/lswt)
> Venha para a Alemanha como PhD: http://bis.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/csf
> Projects: http://nlp2rdf.org , http://linguistics.okfn.org ,
> http://dbpedia.org/Wiktionary , http://dbpedia.org
> Homepage: http://bis.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/SebastianHellmann
> Research Group: http://aksw.org
--
Dipl. Inf. Sebastian Hellmann
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig
Events:
* NLP & DBpedia 2013 (http://nlp-dbpedia2013.blogs.aksw.org, Extended
Deadline: *July 18th*)
* LSWT 23/24 Sept, 2013 in Leipzig (http://aksw.org/lswt)
Venha para a Alemanha como PhD: http://bis.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/csf
Projects: http://nlp2rdf.org , http://linguistics.okfn.org ,
http://dbpedia.org/Wiktionary , http://dbpedia.org
Homepage: http://bis.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/SebastianHellmann
Research Group: http://aksw.org
Received on Friday, 6 September 2013 09:40:07 UTC