W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org > January 2013

Comments on ITS 2.0 specification WD

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 09:07:09 +0100
Message-ID: <50EE76AD.6060204@w3.org>
To: public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
CC: Chase Tingley <chase@spartansoftwareinc.com>, Kevin Lew <kevin@spartansoftwareinc.com>
Sending to the public comments list - Chase and Kevin are not subscribed 
to this, so the comments didn't reach the list. Here they are. Thank you 
very much for the comments, Chase and Kevin. We will discuss these in 
the group and come back to you asap.

Best,

Felix

Am 10.01.13 08:39, schrieb Chase Tingley:
> Hi,
>
> Enclosed are our comments and questions concerning the ITS 2.0 working 
> draft dated December 6, 2012 
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/).  Please feel free to 
> contact us for clarifications if anything is unclear.
>
> *Section 5.4*
> Concerning recursive nesting of external rules, this statement could 
> be clearer:
>
>     The linking mechanism is recursive, the deepest rules being
>     overridden by the top-most rules, if any.
>
>
> We assume that this means that if rules file A includes rules file B, 
> A is "top-most" and its rules take precedence.  However, the terms 
> "deepest" and "top-most" seem prone to misinterpretation.
>
> *Section 5.5*
> The defined order of precedence includes (from highest to lowest 
> priority):
>
>   * non-inherited local markup
>   * global selections in document via a rules element
>   * data category defaults
>
> This list seems to be missing inherited local markup.  Thus, the 
> following structure is ambiguous:
>   <xml>
>     <its:rules>
>       <its:translateRule selector="//bar" translate="no" />
>     </its:rules>
>     <foo its:translate="yes">
>       <bar>Is this translatable?</bar>
>     </foo>
>   </xml>
>
> The <bar> element inherits a non-local "yes" value for its:translate, 
> but is also subject to a "no" value via the global rule.  Which takes 
> precedence?  As implementors, our instinct  is that the inherited 
> local markup ("yes") has precedence, and the text is translatable. 
>  However, this does not seem clear from the specification.
>
> *Section 5.8 (annotatorsRef)*
> We have several questions concerning the correct implementation of 
> this attribute.
>
> i) The list of possible types of tool information to be present includes
>
>     2. information about tools that do 1), but also create ITS annotations
>
>
> Since a subsequent note states that case 1) should be handled by the 
> provenance data category, is it correct to assume that in case 2), 
> both a provenance record (for text content that was created or 
> modifed) and the annotatorsRef (for ITS annotations that were created 
> or modified) should be used?
>
> ii) Should annotatorsRef be updated when new provenance records are 
> created?
>
> iii) Can a single annotatorsRef attribute value contain multiple 
> entries for a single data category?  For example, if multiple 
> automated quality tools (with IRIs "FOO" and "BAR") process a single 
> file, could the annotatorsRef value be encoded like this?
> <doc its:annotatorsRef="lq-issue|FOO lq-issue|BAR">
>
> *Section 8.12 (Provenance Data Category)*
> We also have several questions concerning the correct use of provenance.
>
> i) Can an element have both local provenance data (either inline or 
> via local standoff markup) and also reference global provenance data 
> (declared via global standoff markup) using the attribute specified 
> globally via provenanceRecordsRefPointer?  The draft does not specify.
>
> ii) Similarly, does the ordering of provenance records within a 
> <provenanceRecords> element make a statement about the (temporal) 
> order in which the records were created?  If an ordering is implied, 
> it raises questions about the implied ordering in a document where 
> provenance records are declared both globally and via local markup.
>
> iii) More generally, we observe that provenance records lack a 
> date/time attribute, which makes their semantics as a form of history 
> somewhat muddy.  In practice, a single tool/agent may edit a single 
> document multiple times in succession over an arbitrary period of 
> time.  Should these multiple "sessions" be represented by a single 
> logical provenance record?  Or is it the intention of the spec that 
> the agent add a provenance record for each of these sessions in which 
> a modification is made to the document?
>
> iv) We would also note the complexity of implementing this data 
> category correctly.  For example, consider an example based on Example 
> 63.  In this example, an XML document contains two pieces of text, 
> each of which has been affected by a previous tool.  A single 
> provenance record is encoded using global standoff notation:
> *<text*  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
>    xmlns:its="http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its"  its:version="2.0"*>*
>    *<dc:creator>*John Doe*</dc:creator>*
>    *<its:provenanceRecords*  xml:id="pr1"*>*
>      *<its:provenanceRecord*
>        toolRef="http://www.onlinemtex.com/2012/7/25/wsdl/"
>        org="acme-CAT-v2.3"
>        revToolRef="http://www.mycat.com/v1..0/download  <http://www.mycat.com/v1.0/download>"
>        revOrg="acme-CAT-v2.3"
>        provRef="http://www.examplelsp.com/excontent987/production/prov/e6354"*/>*
>    *</its:provenanceRecords>*
>    *<its:rules*  version="2.0"*>*
>      *<its:provRule*  selector="//*[@ref]"  provenanceRecordsRefPointer="@ref"*/>*
>    *</its:rules>*
>    *<title>*Translation Revision Provenance Agent: Global Test in XML*</title>*
>    *<body>*
>      *<par*  ref="#pr1"*>*  This paragraph was translated from the machine.*</par>*
>      *<legalnotice*  ref="#pr1"*>*This text was also translated from the machine.*</legalnotice>*
>    *</body>*
> *</text>*
> Now, a second agent modifies the file, affecting only the 
> <legalnotice> content.  In this case, the shared provenance record 
> must be forked into a duplicate record to which the second agent can 
> be added:
> *<text*  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
>    xmlns:its="http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its"  its:version="2.0"*>*
>    *<dc:creator>*John Doe*</dc:creator>*
>    *<its:provenanceRecords*  xml:id="pr1"*>*
>      *<its:provenanceRecord*
>        toolRef="http://www.onlinemtex.com/2012/7/25/wsdl/"
>        org="acme-CAT-v2.3"
>        revToolRef="http://www.mycat.com/v1.0/download"
>        revOrg="acme-CAT-v2.3"
>        provRef="http://www.examplelsp.com/excontent987/production/prov/e6354"*/>*
>    *</its:provenanceRecords>*
>    *<its:provenanceRecords*  xml:id="pr2"*>*
>      *<its:provenanceRecord*
>        toolRef="http://www.onlinemtex.com/2012/7/25/wsdl/"
>        org="acme-CAT-v2.3"
>        revToolRef="http://www.mycat.com/v1..0/download  <http://www.mycat.com/v1.0/download>"
>        revOrg="acme-CAT-v2.3"
>        provRef="http://www.examplelsp.com/excontent987/production/prov/e6354"*/>*
>
>
>
> *<its:provenanceRecord*
>        revPerson="John Smith"
>        revOrgRef="http://john-smith.qa.example.com  <http://john-smith.qa.example.com/>"*/>*
>
>
>
> *</its:provenanceRecords>*
>    *<its:rules*  version="2.0"*>*
>      *<its:provRule*  selector="//*[@ref]"  provenanceRecordsRefPointer="@ref"*/>*
>    *</its:rules>*
>    *<title>*Translation Revision Provenance Agent: Global Test in XML*</title>*
>    *<body>*
>      *<par*  ref="#pr1"*>*  This paragraph was translated from the machine.*</par>*
>      *<legalnotice*  ref="#pr2"*>*This text was translated by machine and then post-edited..*</legalnotice>*
>    *</body>*
> *</text>*
> In this case, the tool would have the option of leaving the shared 
> global record and then using local standoff markup to encode the 
> second record (assuming that this combination of global & local 
> records is permissible -- see bove).  However, there are other cases 
> in which the agent would need to perform complex markup manipulations, 
> such as a scenario in which local inline markup (encoding a single 
> provenance record) must be replaced with local standoff markup that 
> contains multiple records.
>
> This complexity may present a barrier to consistent implementation. 
>  It may be worth examining whether it's possible for a newly-created 
> provenance record to reference previously existing provenance records 
> (forming a "chain") in order to minimize the amount of markup that 
> would need to be rewritten by compliant implementations.
>
> Thanks,
> Chase Tingley & Kevin Lew
> Spartan Software
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2013 08:07:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:55:31 UTC