Re: agenda+ referencing ontology (Re: ISSUE-119: ITS RDF Ontology creation [MLW-LT Standard Draft])

btw, I added your namespace at this great service by Richard Cyganiak:
http://prefix.cc/itsrdf
This comes in handy on a unix console, e.g.:

$ curl http://prefix.cc/itsrdf.file.n3
@prefix itsrdf: <http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its/rdf#> .

All the best,
Sebastian

Am 17.04.2013 15:22, schrieb Felix Sasaki:
> Thanks, Sebastian. Is now updated at
> http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its/rdf-content/its-rdf.rdf
> Dave, can you check whether this is ok, and if yes, update
> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/ITS-RDF_mapping
>
> Thanks,
>
> Felix
>
> Am 17.04.13 14:54, schrieb Sebastian Hellmann:
>> Hi Felix,
>> I had another look at the new version. There is a small, but 
>> important difference between DatatypeProperties and xsd:anyURI, see 
>> here: 
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2010Jul/0395.html 
>> (see Axel Polleres answer)
>>
>> In your case however you want to refer to the the rdf:resources, so 
>> anything with xsd:anyURI should be owl:ObjectProperty with no rdfs:range:
>> itsrdf:taAnnotatorsRef
>>     a owl:DatatypeProperty ;
>>     rdfs:range xsd:anyURI .
>>
>> should be:
>>
>> itsrdf:taAnnotatorsRef
>>     a owl:ObjectProperty .
>>
>> This implies per definition, that the Object has to be an 
>> rdf:resource and a valid URI. I am not sure, whether xsd:anyURI 
>> covers IRI's as well, but owl:ObjectProperty should be compatible IIRC.
>>
>> All the best,
>> Sebastian
>>
>> Am 17.04.2013 12:31, schrieb Felix Sasaki:
>>> P.S. again: with feedback from Sebastian (thanks a lot for that!), I 
>>> made an update to the ontology. This doesn't influence the examples 
>>> below (at Dave: we need to update the wiki then, if you agree).
>>>
>>> - Felix
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 17.04.13 10:36, schrieb Felix Sasaki:
>>>> Hi Phil,
>>>>
>>>> Am 17.04.13 09:31, schrieb Phil Ritchie:
>>>>> Felix
>>>>>
>>>>> Does NIF have wider adoption than RDF?
>>>>
>>>> NIF is an RDF based format. That is, the relation betwen NIF and 
>>>> RDF is like between XML and XHTML, or XML and XLIFF.
>>>>
>>>> We use NIF in ITS2 to connect ITS information in markup (XML, 
>>>> HTML5) with an RDF representation. See
>>>>
>>>> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#conversion-to-nif
>>>> and a full example input HTML5 at
>>>> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#EX-HTML-whitespace-normalization
>>>> RDF output using NIF and the ITS2 ontology at
>>>> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/examples/nif/EX-nif-conversion-output.xml
>>>>
>>>> The purpose of the ITS2 ontology is not to relate the RDF 
>>>> representation to XML/RDF - NIF does that -, but to identify the 
>>>> ITS2 properties in an RDF manner, that is with RDF predicates.
>>>>
>>>> There is an interconnection between NIF and the ITS ontology. See 
>>>> this example generated from a part of
>>>> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/examples/nif/EX-nif-conversion-output.xml
>>>>
>>>> <http://example.com/exampledoc.html#char=11,17> nif:anchorOf "Dublin";
>>>>     nif:referenceContext 
>>>> <http://example.com/exampledoc.html#char=0,29>;
>>>>     a nif:RFC5147String;
>>>>     itsrdf:taIdentRef <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dublin>;
>>>>     itsrdf:translate "no";
>>>>     itsrdf:withinText "yes".
>>>>
>>>> This statement
>>>>
>>>> <http://example.com/exampledoc.html#char=11,17> nif:anchorOf "Dublin".
>>>>
>>>> Relates the HTML5 document with the RDF representation. To ancor 
>>>> this relation in the NIF RDF vocabulary we have this statement
>>>>
>>>> <http://example.com/exampledoc.html#char=11,17> a nif:RFC5147String.
>>>>
>>>> The actual ITS ontology statements are these three. They have the 
>>>> same subject as the NIF statements above. That creates the forehand 
>>>> mentioned relation between NIF and ITS2.
>>>> <http://example.com/exampledoc.html#char=11,17> itsrdf:taIdentRef 
>>>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dublin>.
>>>> <http://example.com/exampledoc.html#char=11,17> itsrdf:translate "no".
>>>> <http://example.com/exampledoc.html#char=11,17> itsrdf:withinText 
>>>> "yes".
>>>>
>>>> Now, if you want to process this in SPARQL asking for all non 
>>>> translatable items you would write something like this:
>>>>
>>>> SELECT ?translatableItems
>>>> WHERE { ?translatableItems 
>>>> <http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its/rdf#translate> "no" }
>>>>
>>>> and get as a result
>>>> http://example.com/exampledoc.html#char=23,30
>>>> http://example.com/exampledoc.html#char=11,17
>>>>
>>>> Does this make sense and would it work for what you have in mind?
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Felix
>>>>
>>>>> I understand from what I've read that it is maybe easier to read, 
>>>>> more compact?
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 17 Apr 2013, at 08:22, "Felix Sasaki" <fsasaki@w3.org 
>>>>> <mailto:fsasaki@w3.org>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Dave, Phil, all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have put the ontology on the w3c server. The namespace
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its/rdf#
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its/rdf#translate
>>>>>> resolve with 303 "see other" to
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its/rdf-content/its-rdf.rdf (in RDF/XML 
>>>>>> version)
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its/rdf-content/its-rdf.html
>>>>>> in the latter we can put some more documentation, but for the 
>>>>>> time being what is here is sufficient.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you discuss today whether people would agree with this? Note 
>>>>>> that we then should define the namespace for the ontology also in
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#notation
>>>>>> and this would mean that we reference the ontology normatively. 
>>>>>> If people agree with this, could you give me an action item to 
>>>>>> add the ontology URI during todays call?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note for all implementers: this wouldn't influence you only if 
>>>>>> you implement the NIF conversion. Currently this is Sebastian and 
>>>>>> I - anybody else?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Felix
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 17.04.13 09:04, schrieb Phil Ritchie:
>>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I certainly want to work on transforming some Xliff with ITS LQI 
>>>>>>> and Provenance data into RDF so I'd like to chip in with this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure I have all of the understanding necessary though - 
>>>>>>> particularly around schema creation and validation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would it be worthwhile having a conf. call to get on the same 
>>>>>>> page? I should be on today's call so we could chat then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like to participate in that discussion - I can't be on 
>>>>>> the call today. But feel free to to discuss & hopefully we can 
>>>>>> bring up the topic again next week, or on a separate, dedicated 
>>>>>> call - would you be available Phil?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Felix
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>> Twitter: philinthecloud
>>>>>>> Skype: philviathecloud
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 17 Apr 2013, at 01:38, "Dave Lewis" <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie 
>>>>>>> <mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Jirka, Felix, Sebastian, all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've updated ITS-RDF ontology as follows:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) I agree with Felix's comment to remove custom XML schema 
>>>>>>>> types for attributes as RDf platforms in general don't validate 
>>>>>>>> against these, instead just specifying the simple XML schema 
>>>>>>>> type as appropriate, e.g. xsd:string, xsd:anyURI, xsd:decimal, 
>>>>>>>> xsd:nonNegativeInteger, xsd:integer
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2) for data categories with standoff markup I've introduced a 
>>>>>>>> class to allow the correct grouping of indivdual attiributes to 
>>>>>>>> the a specfic item. These calsses are ProvRecord and 
>>>>>>>> LocalizationQualityIssue
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3) for annotatorsRef I have just introduced individual 
>>>>>>>> attributes for each data categoriy where it applies, namely: 
>>>>>>>> termAnnotatorsRef, taAnnotatorsRef, mtConfidenceAnnotatorsRef
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 4) I've omitted anything related to Ruby
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I believe this is consistent with the NIF related text in the 
>>>>>>>> current draft.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've attached the ontology as a Turtle file, and have updated 
>>>>>>>> the same on:
>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/ITS-RDF_mapping 
>>>>>>>> <http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/ITS-RDF_mapping#Ontology_.28DRAFT.29> 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we can firm up on this then I propose documenting it in a 
>>>>>>>> more accessible format as per W3C norms. In addition we will 
>>>>>>>> need some best practice guidance on using this ontology with at 
>>>>>>>> least both NIF and PROV-O. I'm happy to work on these also, 
>>>>>>>> though all other inputs welcome.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 29/03/2013 13:37, Jirka Kosek wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Dave,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> on the last telcon I have been tasked to "refresh" and try to move
>>>>>>>>> forward some issues. Could you please implemented changes below into
>>>>>>>>> proposed ITS RDF Ontology.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 				Jirka
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 25.2.2013 9:04, MultilingualWeb-LT Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> mlw-lt-track-ISSUE-119: ITS RDF Ontology creation [MLW-LT Standard Draft]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/119
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Raised by: Felix Sasaki
>>>>>>>>>> On product: MLW-LT Standard Draft
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dave started an ITS RDF Ontology. See
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/ITS-RDF_mapping#Ontology_.28DRAFT.29
>>>>>>>>>> This is useful for the NIF conversion.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There was an offline discussion about this, including Dave, Leroy, Sebastian and I.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Some thoughts about the ontology current at
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/ITS-RDF_mapping#Ontology_.28DRAFT.29
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - the ontology uses various RDF classes that are not defined, e.g. "itstype:its-taConfidence.type" is identified as a class via
>>>>>>>>>> "rdf:type itstype:its-taConfidence.type"
>>>>>>>>>> So *if* one want to use "itstype:its-taConfidence.type" as a class, you'd need also
>>>>>>>>>> itstype:its-taConfidence.type rdf:type rdf:Class
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - classes are normally written in upper case, so
>>>>>>>>>> "its-taConfidence.type" would be
>>>>>>>>>> "Its-taConfidence.type"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - As said in the offline thread (sorry for the repetition, guys), I would not define such classes at all. It would be sufficient to define actually no class - just use NIF URIs, and then have statements like this
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> someNIFBasedSubjectUri
>>>>>>>>>> 	its:locQualityIssueComment[1] "'c'es' is unknown. Could be 'c'est'";
>>>>>>>>>> 	its:locQualityIssueEnabled[1]="yes" ;
>>>>>>>>>> 	its:locQualityIssueSeverity[1] "50";
>>>>>>>>>> 	its:locQualityIssueType "misspelling".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The RDF predicates would take as a domain a NIF URI, and as the range an XML literal (or HTML literal, if we use RDF 1.1).
>>>>>>>>>> This approach has also the advantage that you can convert the test suite output easily to RDF "instance" data.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Felix
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <itsrdf.ttl>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ************************************************************
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> ************************************************************
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ************************************************************
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> ************************************************************
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Dipl. Inf. Sebastian Hellmann
>> Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig
>> 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
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