W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org > October 2013

Re: Exclusivity and atomicity of local and global ITS

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 09:54:21 +0200
Message-ID: <525BA32D.1030207@w3.org>
To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
CC: 'Nathan Glenn' <garfieldnate@gmail.com>, public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org
Hi Yves, Nathan, all,

I would propose not to make a change here - during "Proposed 
Recommendations" we should keep the spec as stable as possible. If you 
think something should be changed could you add a pointer to this thread to
http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/IssuesAndProposedFeatures#Issues_and_Proposed_Features_.28For_updating_ITS_2.0.29
?

I am not sure about the "overridden" issue: can you give me a pointer 
what to fix? Spelling errors are also welcome during PR :)

Thanks,

Felix

Am 10.10.13 22:24, schrieb Yves Savourel:
> You’re quite good at picking out little things we’ve missed :)
>
> As far as I know there is no difference with the other data categories.
> The other LQI implementers can confirm that (hopefully)
>
> A node can be selected by both global rules and have some local attributes at the same time. But the local markup always overrides
> all information of the global rules even the one left undefined (i.e. a local undefined info overrides an info defined in a global
> rule)
>
> I think that text:
>
> [[
> Either (in parallel to local inline markup)
> ]]
>
> Has the meaning of “in the same way as the attributes for local inline markup", that is: just noting that those attributes can be
> used locally or globally.
>
> I think it's the type of text that does not bring useful information but can be a source of confusion and we should probably delete
> that if needed. (note that I may have been the one editing that part).
>
> Cheers,
> -yves
>
>
> From: Nathan Glenn [mailto:garfieldnate@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 9:33 AM
> To: Yves Savourel
> Cc: public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Exclusivity and atomicity of local and global ITS
>
> Thanks for the pointer. LQI is an exception, though, right? Since it says "in parallel to local markup".
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com> wrote:
> Nathan:
>
> There is no half-and-half: all the info of a data category instance (even the undeclared one) override the previous one.
>
> "... Override semantics are always complete, that is all information provided via lower precedence is overriden by the higher
> precedence. E.g. defaults are overridden by inherited values, these are overriden by nodes selected via global rules, which are in
> turn overridden by local markup."
>
> Or, in (better) your words: All of the provenance categories (org, person, tool, etc.) are considered as one when deciding what
> overwrites what.
>
> And it's for all data categories, not just provenance.
>
>
> BTW Felix: there is a typo twice: it should be overridden (2 Ds).
>
> -ys
>
>
>
>
> From: Nathan Glenn [mailto:garfieldnate@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2013 10:48 PM
> To: Yves Savourel
> Cc: public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Exclusivity and atomicity of local and global ITS
>
> Thanks. For #1, I meant that the provRule element has a provenanceRecordsRefPointer attribute (see 8.11.2) and the tool markup
> exists locally, so half local half global. Similarly with LQI, locQualityIssueType would be global and locQualityIssueComment local
> (or the other way around, it doesn't matter).
> As for the local standoff winning over the global rule- what does that mean? If local standoff has person and org, and global has
> tool, is the tool ignored? I understand that if local had person and org and global also had person and org that the local would win
> out. I guess you could also ask, what is the granularity of winning out? Are all of the provenance categories (org, person, tool,
> etc.) considered as one when deciding what overwrites what, or are they resolved individually?
> Nathan
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com> wrote:
> Hi Nathan,
>   
> I think the scenario of your question 1 cannot exist.
> You cannot have both a local reference to a stand-off annotation and a local LQI info. (or a global info with a global stand-off
> annotation)
> As for a stand-off annotation and a rule: if the stand-off annotation is from a local rrference it wins over the global rule.
>   
> For #2 I think the rule applies, but the processor generates (possibly) some type of error if it tries to access the pointed
> information.
>   
> Just my 2 cents
> -yves
>   
> From: Nathan Glenn [mailto:garfieldnate@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2013 7:55 PM
> To: public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Exclusivity and atomicity of local and global ITS
>   
> Hello all,
> I am wondering about of couple of possible situations in an ITS-decorated document that require information about the
> exclusivity/atomicity of global and local markup:
>   
> 1) If a rule of the same general category as existing local markup happens to match an element, but the rule and the local markup
> give values for different exact categories, do they both apply? This question is only relevant for provenance and locQualityIssue.
> For example, let's say there's a provRule that matches element X, and references a provenanceRecords element that contains person
> and org information, and local markup on X specifies tool. Does the element then have ITS information on person, org and tool, or
> does the local specification of tool erase any provRule matches? For locQualityIssue, a similar question would arise when a global
> rule specified locQualityIssueType and the local markup specified a locQualityIssueComment. This one is specified with "in parallel
> to local inline markup", so I'm guessing that both would apply.
>   
> 2) If a rule has a pointer attribute that doesn't match, does the rule still match? Is it supposed to depend on what parts of the
> rule are required attributes? For example say that the selector for this rule: <its:termRule selector="//term" term="yes"
>    termInfoPointer="../def"/> matched a <term> element, but its termInfoPointer did not match anything. Does the rule still match?
>   
> Nathan
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 14 October 2013 07:54:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:11:30 UTC