Re: [Relevant for all] options for the RDF representation of ITS 2.0

I vote Option 1

Leroy


On 14 August 2013 12:27, Karl Fritsche <karl.fritsche@cocomore.com> wrote:

> I'm totally on Phil's side here and vote for option 1 too.
>
>
> On 13.08.2013 21:41, Phil Ritchie wrote:
>
>> My vote is for Option 1.
>>
>> [I am a man of few words ;-) ]
>>
>> I think it is important we put a (non-binding) marker in the ground and
>> move forward. I would imagine that the number of implementations (or
>> currently in-development implementations) is small and thus the
>> opportunity
>> to be "flight of foot" whilst legacy is minimal.
>>
>> Phil
>> Twitter: philinthecloud
>> Skype: philviathecloud
>>
>>
>> On 12 Aug 2013, at 07:43, "Felix Sasaki" <fsasaki@w3.org> 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<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<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<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<http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#Context>
>>>           2.
>>>
>>>  http://persistence.uni-**leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/**ontologies/nif-core#**
>> RFC5147String<http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#RFC5147String>
>>
>>            3.
>>> http://persistence.uni-**leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/**
>>> ontologies/nif-core#beginIndex<http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#beginIndex>
>>>           4.
>>> http://persistence.uni-**leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/**
>>> ontologies/nif-core#endIndex<http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#endIndex>
>>>           5.
>>>
>>>  http://persistence.uni-**leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/**ontologies/nif-core#**
>> referenceContext<http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#referenceContext>
>>
>>            6.
>>> http://persistence.uni-**leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/**
>>> ontologies/nif-core#isString<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<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<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
>>>
>>>  **************************************************************
>> VistaTEC Ltd. Registered in Ireland 268483.
>> Registered Office, VistaTEC House, 700, South Circular Road,
>> Kilmainham. Dublin 8. Ireland.
>>
>> The information contained in this message, including any accompanying
>> documents, is confidential and is intended only for the addressee(s).
>> The unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, or alteration of this
>> message is strictly forbidden. If you have received this message in
>> error please notify the sender immediately.
>> **************************************************************
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>