- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 19:18:58 +0200
- To: "Dr. David Filip" <David.Filip@ul.ie>
- CC: Tadej Stajner <tadej.stajner@ijs.si>, "public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <520A6A82.7040707@w3.org>
Hi David, all, speaking with spec editors and NIF implementers point of view (not as co-chair). Am 13.08.13 17:49, schrieb Dr. David Filip: > Hi all, > > most seem to be inclined to Option 1, but rewriting the normative NIF > section to become non-normative has complexities that Dave described > very well. I think the changes that Dave describes are pretty straightforward. It would take probably 1/2 - 1 hour of editing to implement them and then a few days for the WG to review them. > 1 seems the lowest hurdle but actually changes a lot in the > standardization sense. It changes the same as all other options: it is a normative changes and forces us to go back to last call. > > I'd be for at least exploring the option 2a. I'd not be worried about > the ITS and NIF communities impedance, we would just use a stable w3c > hosted snapshot of the provisions and as result almost nothing would > need to change in the spec If we go for 2a), there will be at least 4 code bases to be updated: the implementation from DFKI (= me) TCD, VistaTec https://github.com/finnle/ITS-2.0-Testsuite/tree/master/its2.0/nif-conversion/outputimplementors and Sebastian. In addition, the SPARQL tests will need to be updated too https://github.com/finnle/ITS-2.0-Testsuite/tree/master/its2.0/nif-conversion/sparqltests in terms of the total, effort this looks more than the option 1) to me. Also, the result will be that we will have two code bases in the future: the ones processing NIF/W3C URIs and the ones processing the NIF URIs based on the persistent Univ. of Leipzig URI. > All features would remain normative so non of the implementers' effort > so far would be "vasted" I see actually implementers produced by doing this change - and in the long term more implementers efforts coming up, since the NIF community will base their evolution not on the W3C NIF URIs, but on the Leipzig ones - this is there the community "lives". The implementers again will have to align the different sets of URIs. > > As both 1 and 2a require a new LC, I would think that 2a is the ideal > solution. we can call the six uris and ontology a NIF snapshot for > ITS2 purposes or whatever, so that no mutual maintenance dependencies > could even be suspcted.. Also the Univeristy of Leipzig links are > specific to a version and will not change, even when NIF develops a > new version with different provisions.. 2a provides us with a normative answer to the question "Does the working group want to standardize an RDF representation of ITS2". However, from Dave's mail at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Aug/0016.html I have the impression that the localization currently is not pushing for that normative answer. I assume that your mail, David, is motivated by the goal to have a clean "standardization" record and not turn from normative to non normative with the NIF conversion feature in ITS2. That is understandable, but from Dave's mail I have the impression that it is not requested by the localization community (and their stakeholders in our WG) that are gaining more and more interest in RDF? Best, Felix > > I would not even consider 2b > > Cheers and talk to you tomorrow > dF > > > Dr. David Filip > ======================= > LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS > University of Limerick, Ireland > telephone: +353-6120-2781 > *cellphone: +353-86-0222-158* > facsimile: +353-6120-2734 > mailto: david.filip@ul.ie <mailto:david.filip@ul.ie> > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Tadej Stajner <tadej.stajner@ijs.si > <mailto:tadej.stajner@ijs.si>> wrote: > > Hi, Felix, all, > well, since NIF has a lifecycle, tempo and support independent of > ITS, I'd go for option 1 - a non-normative reference. Moving (2a) > it to a new namespace seemingly implies a dependency on W3C, and > I'm not sure what that would do to their process. I think the > organizational and operational unknowns can get complex with this. > > For ITS2.0 and its users, my opinion is that having the reference > non-normative instead of normative wouldn't make a difference in > terms of adoption. > > -- Tadej > > > On 8/12/2013 1:42 AM, Felix Sasaki wrote: > > Hi all, > > this mail is relevant for the general progress of ITS 2.0. > Please have a look even if you are not interested in the RDF > representation of ITS 2.0. > > At > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Aug/0009.html > > > I had explained changes to be done to move ITS 2.0. forward. > The change "make NIF a *non* normative reference" is actually > just one option to reply to this requirement from our charter > http://www.w3.org/2012/09/mlw-lt-charter.html > > "The MultilingualWeb-LT WG will assure that the metadata > approach being developed is allowing a conversion to RDF, to > foster integration of MultilingualWeb-LT metadata into the > Semantic Web." > > This requirement does not say that we define a normative > approach to allow for that conversion. My mail at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Aug/0009.html > > was suggesting to use NIF as the non normative approach. > > With this mail I want to bring all options clearly in front of > the working group and see what you think. Please have a look > at let's decide on Wednesday how to move forward. Until then, > the edit announced in the 0009 mail is on hold. > > So the options are > > 1) Have a non-normative reference to NIF, as suggested in the > 0009 mail > > > > 2) Intent to have a standardized, that is normative RDF > representation of ITS2. This could then not be NIF. It could be > > > 2a) something based on NIF, e.g. moving the six URIs that we > rely on (+ the ontology file?) > > 1. > http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#Context > 2. > http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#RFC5147String > 3. > http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#beginIndex > 4. > http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#endIndex > 5. > http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#referenceContext > 6. > http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#isString > 7. The ontology file that defines these URIs (= RDF > classes + > properties) > http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core/version-1.0/nif-core.ttl > > > into the W3C namespace and define the URIs + the ontology as > normative part of ITS2. But it could also be > > > 2b) something completely different, yet to be defined. Issue > https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/18 > made clear that it cannot be RDFa. > > > Above options are hard to evaluate since we have the EU > funding based timeline. But to move forward we need a working > group opinion. Please state your thoughts in this thread. > > Best, > > Felix > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2013 17:19:35 UTC