Open neradis opened 8 years ago
The quote is from https://github.com/NLP2RDF/documentation/issues/1
I think you should kill the "Generic Provenance and Confidence Properties" nif-ann:confidence
and nif-ann:provenance
since they play the same role as itsrdf:taConfidence
and itsrdf:taAnnotatorsRef
,
but the ITSRDF props take precedence.
NOTE: mind the spelling, it's itsrdf:taAnnotatorsRef not itsrdf:taAnnotatorRef
One of the main use reasons for the generic confidence and provenance properties is to have a catch-all/ad-hoc fallback-solution to express confidence and provenance for new or custom annotation where no companion properties have been introduced yet or where a NIF producer deems it's not really worth to introduce specific companion properties for his annotation property.
So, this possibility is indeed redundant for the itsrdf:taIdentRef
/itsrdf:taConfidence
case, but we also want to keep NIF open use cases then people might want to annotate (with confidence and provenance) language/content aspects not covered by ITSRDF
Thanks for the spelling hint, will fix that.
Where does it say that itsrdf:taConfidence and itsrdf:taAnnotatorsRef are not generic? Why couldn't they be applied to text analysis aspects not covered by ITS?
Arguments in favor of the new props:
Personally I'd be happy if NIF 2.1 adopts "confidence" and "provenance": but then it should not use taConfidence and taAnnotatorsRef:
@VladimirAlexiev wrote:
I added (A new section in the docs)[http://nif.readthedocs.org/en/2.1-rc/prov-and-conf.html#relation-of-nif-2-1-companion-properties-to-itsrdf-properties] discussion the ITS semantics and why we decided to create own complementary versions.
464c0d7a47e41dfcba8e74cba1645268758e22c7 also added notes in the ontology documents and formal OWL declarations of their relatedness to the maximum degree possible from my point of view without imposing OWL inference ramification to ITSRDF project without prior coordination.