Re: [W3C] Terminology module: next telco (July)

Dear Christian,
Thanks for your explanation which seems pretty comprehensive. This seems
like a very grey area to me and I know for instance that CLARIN have
managed to make CMDI an ISO standard while still keeping it available for
free on their site (I also believe that Laurent Romary is informally
helping to keep the TEI serialisation of LMF aligned with TEI-Lex 0). So
the idea would be to contact ISO/TC 37/SC 3 with a view to understanding
what the terms of any potential collaboration/coordination between that
group and the W3C group might be, and to see whether these suit both
parties. That is, if the participants to the OntoLex group, and above all
those of us who want to work on the Terminology module, think such
coordination is worth pursuing in the first place. In this regard, my
impression (as a non-terminologist) is that ISO standards (like TBX itself)
count for a lot more in the terminology world than they do in the world of,
say, lexical resources or corpus annotation where open, community derived,
standards are much more popular (I'm happy to be corrected on this by
terminologists themselves).  In which case it makes even less sense to have
two contending serialisations representations of TBX into RDF, one of which
is an ISO standard (again, this is not to say that providing a
representation of TBX into RDF is the sole use case which has been proposed
for the new terminology module, though it is a pretty important one).
Cheers
Fahad

Il giorno mar 20 giu 2023 alle ore 08:13 Christian Chiarcos <
christian.chiarcos@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> Dear Fahad, dear Thierry, dear all,
>
> thanks for this discussion. In any case, the only way to keep closed
> ISO/TC-internal discussions synchronized with open standardization
> processes is to define a stable interface, preferrably not the ISO standard
> itself (because it is proprietary, and drafts are not to be circulated),
> but accompanying documentation (say, XML schemata as under
> https://www.tbxinfo.net/tbx-downloads/iso-24633-resources/), along with
> an open source reference converter to generate the agreed-upon RDF
> representation (e.g., as Turtle or JSON-LD serialization) from TBX XML
> data. This reference converter (and the data structures it produces) can
> then be developed in a joint fashion. In this way, ISO rights are preserved
> (neither converter nor schema need to quote from the standard), and ISO
> definitions remain untouched (and can just be applied to the different RDF
> serializations).
>
> On the other hand, in my understanding, any attempt of RDF modelling from
> scratch *within ISO/TC 37/SC 3* would effectively rule out the
> participation of the wider community because of ISO regulations on
> information sharing. What could work instead -- if this is the goal, indeed
> -- would be to develop an RDF model from scratch outside ISO/TC 37/SC 3
> (but, optionally, under inclusion of ISO/TC 37/SC 3 members, be it as
> proposers, contributors or observers), and then to acknowledge this as
> (part of) an ISO standard in a subsequent step. The difference is that the
> initiative does not formally lie within ISO TCs. That was the way of
> earlier ISO standards (e.g., https://www.w3.org/2011/07/wspas-pr.html or
> https://www.oasis-open.org/2017/02/21/iso-iec-jtc-1-approves-oasis-odata-standard-for-open-data-exchange/),
> and unless we hear otherwise from ISO, that seems to be the only way for an
> open community to formally contribute to or collaborate with this TBX-RDF
> initiative.
>
> Another way out would be a formal agreement between ISO and, say, W3C on
> joint standard development, but as far as I know, W3C legal form doesn't
> meet ISO requirements for potential contract partners. (W3C has been
> undergoing some restructuring lately, so I am not 100% sure on that point,
> but that was the situation in the past. But even then, it is not clear what
> this means for W3C Community Groups, because these are part of the W3C
> ecosystem, but not the W3C as an institution.)
>
> BTW: As there are several TBX-to-RDF converters around, already, I think
> the community and downstream applications would greatly benefit from not
> starting RDF modelling from scratch all over again, or, at least, not
> behind closed doors, but to involve current providers and users of such
> data and converters to maximize impact and maintain interoperability. If
> this is really the goal, it can be much more easily achieved in an open
> community where developers and users can just lurk and contribute as
> needed, rather than in a closed setting in which individual experts need to
> be identified first, and then be formally invited on demand.
>
> Just my 2ct,
> Christian
>
> Am Mo., 19. Juni 2023 um 21:29 Uhr schrieb Fahad Khan <
> fahad.khan@ilc.cnr.it>:
>
>> Dear Thierry,
>> Thanks for the clarification. You are right that "serialisation" is a
>> sloppy use of language here which I'm effectively using as a shorthand for
>> something more like a crosswalk (the serialisation would technically be to
>> RDF/XML or turtle, etc,), if you like we can go with representation from
>> now on. Regarding your second point, I feel that the Terminology module
>> should offer the possibility of as faithful a conversion or representation
>> of TBX data into RDF as possible, and even that this should be one of the
>> main selling points of the module.
>> Cheers
>> Fahad
>>
>> Il giorno lun 19 giu 2023 alle ore 21:02 Thierry Declerck <
>> declerck@dfki.de> ha scritto:
>>
>>> Hi Fahad, All,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the mail! From me just a "terminological" comment. The ISO
>>> work is on "representing" the core of TBX in RDF, but not on"serializing"
>>> TBX in RDF (as RDF is a modeling language). I think that we have to be
>>> careful here (and the ISO committee, the link you are pointing to) is using
>>> the right term (Representation).
>>>
>>> Besides this, I think that an Ontolex-driven representation of
>>> terminology data should go beyond the "mere" reproduction of TBX and should
>>> make full use of RDF-based modeling. Some of the points Patricia mentioned
>>> in the document refered to by Jorge are related to this point.
>>>
>>> Well just some thoughts.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Thierry
>>> Am 19.06.2023 um 19:29 schrieb Fahad Khan:
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>> As I mentioned in the W3C Day preparation meeting today, I was in
>>> Brussels last week for the annual ISO/TC 37 meeting where I became aware of
>>> work being carried out within the aegis of the terminological committee
>>> ISO/TC 37/SC 3 with the aim of defining a serialisation of TBX into RDF.
>>> <https://www.iso.org/standard/84361.html> Subsequently I got into
>>> contact with Hanne Smaadahl, the chairperson of the committee, who was
>>> extremely enthusiastic about the prospect of the two groups coordinating
>>> their respective efforts in a case where there was a very strong chance of
>>> overlap ( as I recall one important use case for the new OntoLex module is
>>> the conversion of TBX datasets into RDF). I think it would be worth
>>> discussing this at the next terminology focused telco to try and understand
>>> what such collaboration might look like, especially given the closed nature
>>> of ISO standards, something which I guess is kind of anathema to
>>> our community (though I also think it makes no sense to have two rival RDF
>>> seralisations of TBX floating around).
>>> Cheers
>>> Fahad
>>>
>>> Il giorno lun 19 giu 2023 alle ore 19:10 Jorge Gracia del Río <
>>> jogracia@unizar.es> ha scritto:
>>>
>>>> Dear W3C ontolex members,
>>>>
>>>> As you know, we recently started a discussion on a potential
>>>> Terminology module for Ontolex. Our previous telco took place on 10th May,
>>>> and it's time to schedule a new one. Please, those interested in
>>>> participating fill in this doodle poll with some options in the first two
>>>> weeks of July by the end of this week:
>>>> https://doodle.com/meeting/participate/id/dwr0RRzb
>>>>
>>>> As a reminder, the main decision from the last telco was to start
>>>> documenting the issues that arise when working with lemon-ontolex to model
>>>> terminologies. Patricia enlisted some of them here:
>>>> https://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Terminology#Open_Issues,
>>>> they will be filled with more details before the next meeting. Also, any
>>>> other member with experience in modelling terminologies in lemon, feel free
>>>> to document your own issues using the same template.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Jorge
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jorge Gracia, PhD
>>>> Department of Computer Science and Systems Engineering /
>>>> Aragon Institute of Engineering Research (I3A)
>>>> University of Zaragoza
>>>> http://jogracia.url.ph/web/
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Thierry Declerck
>>> Senior Consultant at DFKI GmbH, Multilinguality and Language Technology
>>> Stuhlsatzenhausweg, 3
>>> D-66123 Saarbruecken
>>> Phone: +49 681 / 857 75-53 58
>>> Fax: +49 681 / 857 75-53 38
>>> email: declerck@dfki.de
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz GmbH
>>> Trippstadter Strasse 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany
>>>
>>> Geschäftsführung:
>>> Prof. Dr. Antonio Krüger (Vorsitzender)
>>> Helmut Ditzer
>>>
>>> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
>>> Dr. Ferri Abolhassan
>>> Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>