who's developing NIF 2.1 and where? (Provenance and Confidence)

[VladimirAlexiev]

The Provenance and Confidence in NIF 2.1 proposal (http://nif.readthedocs.org/en/2.1-rc/prov-and-conf.html):

• It describes something completely different from the NIF+Stanbol (FISE) profile:

I wrote in https://github.com/NLP2RDF/specification/issues/2 that I don't like that NIF+Stanbol uses completely different properties for "multiple annotations": the current proposal is better in this regard.

• https://github.com/NLP2RDF/ontologies/issues/11 describes a similar but different approach for NIF 2.1.

Can we have some assurance that the first link above will be the future NIF 2.1? We'd like to know this for sure before we make mega-tons of RDF in the Multisensor project.

There are several repos and thus several trackers under https://github.com/NLP2RDF (ontologies, specification, documentation), which is really bad, as I asked in https://github.com/NLP2RDF/ontologies/issues/12.

• Is someone looking at these trackers and addressing the issues?
• Please "close" all but one: 1. Is it possible to move the outstanding issues to one tracker? 2. If you can't forbid posting, at least say it in red on the repo's home page.

[VladimirAlexiev]

Just noticed that this proposal also disregards the direct props that exist in ITSRDF, eg:

  itsrdf:taAnnotatorsRef "text-analysis|http://linguatec.com";
  itsrdf:taConfidence 0.9.

[neradis]

There are several repos and thus several trackers under https://github.com/NLP2RDF (ontologies, specification, documentation), which is really bad

Totally agreeing with that. Followed your suggestions, added notes about not using the trackers in the specification and documentation repositories for issues with/discussion about the NIF ontology and vocabulary per se. We can still resort to actually close when there will be cases from now on the people continues posting misplaced issues there due to TL;DR-syndrome.

[neradis]

Just noticed that this proposal also disregards the direct props that exist in ITSRDF

In line with the issue tracker policy suggested I will quote that concern in the ontologies issue tracker to answer it.

[VladimirAlexiev]

@neradis Could you please try to use https://github-issue-mover.appspot.com/ to "move" all open issues to ontologies? There's no "move" operation on github, but it makes a copy, closes the original and makes a link.

Got this tool from http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9720718/how-do-i-move-an-issue-on-github-to-another-repo, which https://github.com/github/hub/issues/886 calls "a fount of knowledge" on the topic.