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

Re: ISSUE-72: Provenance Data Category - same for locQualityIssue?

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 11:39:22 +0100
Message-ID: <514C34DA.6080709@w3.org>
To: Pablo Nieto Caride <pablo.nieto@linguaserve.com>
CC: 'Dave Lewis' <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>, 'Phil Ritchie' <philr@vistatec.ie>, 'Chase Tingley' <chase@spartansoftwareinc.com>, kevin@spartanconsultinginc.com, public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org, public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
Hi Pablo, all,

finally I made the edit for this. See the changelog
http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#changelog-since-20121206
entry 23 and
http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#locQualityIssue-order
http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#provenanceRecord-order

This should be it for issue-72, let me know if something is missing.

Best,

Felix

Am 28.01.13 11:24, schrieb Pablo Nieto Caride:
>
> Hi,
>
> I agree with you guys, we should be consistent so the same approach 
> seems valid to me. Dave, I assume that we should add a note or 
> something about this in the spec, shouldn't we?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pablo.
>
> *>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>***
>
> Absolutely. I think we'd been assuming tis when we discussed it for 
> provenance records at the face to face last week, but I realised we 
> hadn't sought explicit consensus on this.
>
> cheers,
> Dave
>
> On 27/01/2013 19:25, Phil Ritchie wrote:
>
>     Yes, that's fine with me. We should keep characteristics like
>     these consistent across categories.
>
>     Phil.
>
>
>
>
>
>     From: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie> <mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
>     To: Chase Tingley <chase@spartansoftwareinc.com>
>     <mailto:chase@spartansoftwareinc.com>,
>     Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
>     <mailto:public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org>,
>     public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
>     <mailto:public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>,
>     kevin@spartanconsultinginc.com
>     <mailto:kevin@spartanconsultinginc.com>
>     Date: 26/01/2013 12:51
>     Subject: Re: ISSUE-72: Provenance Data Category - same for
>     locQualityIssue?
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>     Thanks Chase.
>
>     A logical follow-on question for LocQualityIssue implementors (as
>     the other data category with stand off markup with multiple
>     elements): Should we make the order of locQualityIssue element
>     within a locQualityIssues stand off element reflect the order they
>     were added in the same way?
>
>     i.e. after the definition of locQualityIssues we add  text:
>     "The order of its:locQualityIssue elements within a
>     its:locQualityIssues element should reflect the order with which
>     they were added to the document, with the most recently added one
>     listed first."
>
>     Phil, guys?
>
>     Regards,
>     Dave
>
>     On 25/01/2013 19:37, Chase Tingley wrote:
>     Hi Dave,
>
>     That sounds good.
>
>     Thanks
>
>     On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie
>     <mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>> wrote:
>     Hi Chase,
>     Thanks for getting back to us on this.
>
>     In relation to ordering of its:provenanceRecord I propose
>     therefore to add the following sentence to the provenance section,
>     after we introduce this element:
>
>     "The order of its:provenanceRecord elements within a
>     its:provenanceRecords element should reflect the order with which
>     they were added to the document, with the most recently added one
>     listed first."
>
>     Can signal whether you are happy with this?
>
>     Then given, your comments also on the time annotation issue below,
>     I think I will be able to close this issue.
>
>     thanks again for this comment,
>     Regards,
>     Dave
>
>
>     On 23/01/2013 18:17, Chase Tingley wrote:
>     Hi Dave & Pablo,
>
>     Thanks for the responses.  Comments inline
>
>     On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie
>     <mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>> wrote:
>     Hi Chase, Kevin, all,
>     First thanks to Pablo for his response. Some further responses
>     inline below related to timing:
>
>     On 15/01/2013 17:33, Pablo Nieto Caride wrote:
>
>     Hi Felix, all,
>
>     >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.
>
>     Certainly the spec does not talk about temporal order, but given
>     that records cannot be declared both globally and via local markup
>     for a single element, the way I see it, and to simplify things,
>     each provenance record should be older than the previous one.
>
>     I think the best we can do is offer best practice advice that the
>     order with which more than one its:provenanceRecord are listed in
>     its:provenanceRecords element should reflect the order they were
>     added to the document rather than the order in which the
>     translation(revision) actually happened.
>
>     Pablo, could you confirm that you intend the oldest one to be
>     listed last?
>
>     I don't think we can mandate that the order indicated the order in
>     which the activity indicated in the record (translation or
>     translation revision) were preformed. This information may not be
>     available to the processor adding the annotation. For example a
>     TMS may add this annotation after receiving translation revisions
>     from two different translators both for multiple elements but
>     without per element timing information, so it wouldn't know the
>     order in which the actual revisions were performed. Alternatively
>     their timings may be known for different elements, but they
>     overlap in time, so there wouldn't be an obvious order for the
>     records.
>
>     I think this makes sense.  It's more important to me that the
>     overall semantics be clear than that the ordering work one way or
>     another.  Just the knowledge that, for example, provenance records
>     are more like a list than a bag is an important detail.
>
>     >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?
>
>     As I said in the previous point any modification of the content
>     should add a new provenance record, at least is what I had in mind.
>     The original requirements for the proveance data category
>     primarily were intended to identifiy and differentiate the
>     _agents_ involved in translation or revising translations
>     different parts of a document. Its not clear what would be the
>     best form of timing information. Should it be the period over
>     which the agents conducted the translation(revison) or the
>     instance in time at which they completed it. As indicated above,
>     even just determining the ordering, let alone the absolute timing
>     of the activity, can be complicated, and would require collection
>     of this information to be pushed downstream to CAT tools that
>     aren't otherwise ITS aware. This might present an implementation
>     barrier if correct timing was mandated.
>
>     Yes, you're right that this gets very messy when you consider
>     aggregating provenance data from multiple agents that may have
>     been processing in parallel.  The main point I wanted to clarify
>     was that the purpose of the data category was to identify agents
>     as opposed to "processing events".  I think this is enough for now.
>
>     Thanks!
>
>
>
>
>
>     ************************************************************
>     This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
>     intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
>     are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
>     the sender immediately by e-mail.
>
>     www.vistatec.com <http://www.vistatec.com>
>     ************************************************************
>
Received on Friday, 22 March 2013 10:39:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 22 March 2013 10:39:56 GMT