W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > April 2012

Re: [all] Discussion on proposed metadata categories: approvalStatus

From: Phil Ritchie <philr@vistatec.ie>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 07:18:06 +0100
To: "David Lewis" <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
Message-ID: <E8BF6F1E-A850-4EC6-AB11-E6D493859BCF@vistatec.ie>
Cc: "public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
I have some thoughts on this but won't get to articulate them until tomorrow (over worked).

In general LSP's would be used to getting content ahead of final publication and then incrementing revisions up until publication date. Note the process that we had for our own press release!

I'm not sure dictating a start date to an LSP is beneficial. Each sub-process should surely be a black box.

Therefore less granular categories and perhaps more values might be the way to go. More later.

Phil
Twitter: philinthecloud
Skype: philviathecloud


On 26 Apr 2012, at 00:53, "David Lewis" <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:

> Hi Moritz,
> I think you make a very good general point here. It may be a bit too open ended to specify data categories that hardwire the completion of a specific step. We would run into the same issues we have with defining the different process values as we discussed around process trigger. Also, its not clear to me that all status flag suggestion for current steps, e.g. legal approval, really need to be separated from other steps.
> 
> I think therefore we could generalise this as part of the process trigger data category as you suggest. This could allow us to consolidate approvalStatus, cacheStatus, legalStaus, proofReading state and revision state (and delegate the definition of these steps to data values rather than individual data categories). We can address cacheStatus, and at he same time generalise it to other processes than just translation, by including the time stamp and a revision flag. 
> 
> Also, I think the priority data category should be included here, as translation could consist of many different processes in combination, so it semantics are dependent on which one. At the same time we may also be interested in defining priorities even for non translation activities, such as review.
> 
> requested-process (which has the name of the next process requested)
> 
> process-ref (which may allow us to point to an external set of process definitions used for processRequested if the default value set is not used)
> 
> ready-at (defines the time the content is ready for the process, it could be some time in the past, or some time in the future - this support part of the cacheStatus function)
> 
> revised (yes/no - indicated is this is a different version of content that was previously marked as ready for the declared process)
> 
> priority (I think for now we should keep this simple and just have values high/low )
> 
> complete-by (provides a target date-time for completing the process)
> 
> Any thoughts on this suggestion. Pedro, Ryan, Moritz, Des, I think this impacts on data categories you have an interest in.
> 
> Also, DavidF, Pedro, Ryan, do you think this makes process state redundant? As a status flag are we more interested in what process to do next, rather than which one is finished. At the same time the provenance data category could tell us which processes have already finished operating on the content. 
> 
> cheers,
> Dave
> 
> 
> On 24/04/2012 11:11, Moritz Hellwig wrote:
>> 
>> to identify publication process metadata which might also be relevant for the LSP. I ran into a couple of questions though.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I’ll use approvalStatus as an example (from the requirements document):
>> 
>> >> approvalStatus
>> 
>> >> Information about the status of the content in a formal approval workflow
>> 
>> >> Indicates whether the content has been approved for release
>> 
>> >> Possible values:
>> 
>> >>>> yes
>> 
>> >>>> no
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Approval can have many values which are rarely only “release yes|no” and they can be client/application-specific. However, none of these statuses seem to be relevant to the LSP, as they only precede or succeed the LSP’s processes.
>> 
> 

************************************************************
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
************************************************************
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2012 06:18:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 9 June 2013 00:24:55 UTC