ITSRDF properties for confidence and provenance

[neradis]

@VladimirAlexiev wrote:

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

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.

464c0d7 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.

[VladimirAlexiev]

The quote is from NLP2RDF/documentation#1

[VladimirAlexiev]

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

[neradis]

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

[neradis]

Thanks for the spelling hint, will fix that.

[VladimirAlexiev]

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?

[VladimirAlexiev]

Arguments in favor of the new props:

• the names "confidence" and "provenance" are better than taConfidence and taAnnotatorsRef
• if you want them to participate in subproperty statements, it's cleaner to do this in your own namespace.
• we have used taConfidence and taAnnotatorsRef props little/wrongly in Multisensor. But I can't say whether they are used in other datasets

Personally I'd be happy if NIF 2.1 adopts "confidence" and "provenance": but then it should not use taConfidence and taAnnotatorsRef:

• declare them deprecated
• describe in the doc that one should use "confidence" and "provenance" instead
• take them out of all examples
  There's nothing worse than having 2 props for the same purpose