- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:41:46 +0100
- To: Pablo Nieto Caride <pablo.nieto@linguaserve.com>
- CC: public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <50EE9AEA.7080100@w3.org>
Hi Pablo,
please feel free to send your comments via mail. I tried to separate
Chase and Kevin's comments, so to make tracking easier please add the
issue number from
https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/open
into the mail. Chase and Kevin are not subscribed the the comments list
- if you want to discuss with them directly please put them in cc - see
their mail addresses at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0013.html
- Felix
Am 10.01.13 11:34, schrieb Pablo Nieto Caride:
>
> Hi Felix, all,
>
> I went through Chase and Kevin's comments and checked spec, and I
> think the comments are very interesting and worth discussing. I see
> you raised some issues, I assume we will discuss them over the next
> calls, or would you prefer me to send you my comments on email?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pablo.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> 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 10:42:33 UTC