RE: [all] suggestions for consolidating requirements

Dear David, all,

 

Briefly my answers (in >>Pedro>>)

 

Moritz, Des: I think there is potential to combine 'confidentiality' with
'contentLicensingTerms', with confidentiality being a specific value of
contentLicensingTerms, whcih could perhaps be relaised using Creative
Commons license classes



>>Pedro>> I am not sure. It is possible that contentLicensingTerms refers
more to “commercialization and use” of content while “confidentiality”
refers to just to “show, distribution or dissemination”. 

 

DaveL, Moritz: Could localeSpecificContent be consolidated with dropRule,
e.g. specifying the content should be drops for specific locales, for every
translation, or for every translation except specified locales?



>>Pedro>> Agreed, as long as in “localeSpecificContent” there is a way for
saying: not to be translated in any locale. Perhaps for this it also enough
Translate: no.

 

DaveL, Pedro: I think we could consolidate author, revisionAgent and
translationAgent, with a generic 'agent' bound to a process spec, aligning
with work in the W3C Provenance Working Group,
<http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/> www.w3.org/2011/prov/



>> Agreed. The different xxxxxAgent categories could be consolidated in only
one Agent with different values. I do not know the W3C Provenance WG, but
certainly it looks like they go much further than us.


Pedro, Dabiel, Declan, Tadej: I think there may be opportunity to
consolidate mtDisambiguationData, namedEntity, terminology and
textAnalyticsAnnotation. For instance is MT disambiguation really
terminology support for MT?



>> It is true that these four categories seems to be very related. Maybe,
the difference we can distinguish more clearly is between the metatada that
tags some text which is part of the content itself, and the metadata that
adds a label, category or additional information, which is not part of the
content itself. 

 

In this sense, after reading again the current descriptions, namedEntity,
terminology and textAnalyticsAnnotation seems that marks a term which is
part of the content, to provide contextual info, referential info or
“reference concept” and translations in different languages, while
mtDisambiguationData does not mark a term present in the content itself, but
provides an additional information about “domain” or “semantic feature” that
affects to a certain scope of the content. 

 

If we agree with this, we could them consolidate the four into two: metadata
to tag actual terms or parts of the content for different purposes, and
metadata to add knowledge information about the content or a part of the
content.

 

I hope this help.

Pedro

  _____  

De: David Lewis [mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie] 
Enviado el: jueves, 26 de abril de 2012 14:23
Para: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Asunto: [all] suggestions for consolidating requirements

 

Dear all,
I have four further suggestions for consolidating requirements that I'd like
to discuss briefly on the call with the relevant people:

Moritz, Des: I think there is potential to combine 'confidentiality' with
'contentLicensingTerms', with confidentiality being a specific value of
contentLicensingTerms, whcih could perhaps be relaised using Creative
Commons license classes

DaveL, Moritz: Could localeSpecificContent be consolidated with dropRule,
e.g. specifying the content should be drops for specific locales, for every
translation, or for every translation except specified locales?

DaveL, Pedro: I think we could consolidate author, revisionAgent and
translationAgent, with a generic 'agent' bound to a process spec, aligning
with work in the W3C Provenance Working Group, www.w3.org/2011/prov/

Pedro, Dabiel, Declan, Tadej: I think there may be opportunity to
consolidate mtDisambiguationData, namedEntity, terminology and
textAnalyticsAnnotation. For instance is MT disambiguation really
terminology support for MT?

comments weclome,
Dave