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

RE: [All] its-tool-ref vs. its-tools-ref

From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 13:42:46 -0700
To: <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <assp.068270ecaf.assp.06827b565b.004401cdd004$6b737df0$425a79d0$@com>
Hi Felix, Jörg, Phil, Dave, all,

=== a) if we had toolsRef wouldn't be logical to have annotatorsRef (rather than annotatorRef)?

=== b) Now I'm starting to wonder what the annotatorRef exactly is pointing too. Reading this sentence:

"...For example, the score of the MT Confidence data category (provided via the mtConfidence attribute) is meaningful only when the consumer of the information also knows what MT engine produced it," 

It clearly refers to the MT engine, which may or may not be the actual tool that does the annotation (i.e. adds the markup).

I know it sound like nitpicking, but if annotatorRef is about the tool that created the information for the data category, as opposed to the tool that introduced the actual ITS markup to hold that information (and I know in some cases it can be the same tool), then:

-- 'annotator' seems like a wrong choice. originatorsRef or originsRef or processorsRef may be closer to the function of the attribute.

-- And this brings me back to the Provenance's toolRef/revToolRef: It seems then that annotatorRef hold the same information as those two attributes. Therefore:

 1) What its:annotatorRef for provenance holds?

 and 2) Can't we remove toolRef/revToolRef to use annotatorRef with 'provenance' and 'provenance-rev'?


I think currently annotatorRef does not define clearly which tool it addresses: The MT confidence example indicates the 'originator' of the information, but the sentence: "The attribute annotatorRef provides a way to associate all the annotations of a given data category within the element with information about the processor that generated those data category annotations." indicates the 'annotator' of the information. Which is it?


-ys




-----Original Message-----
From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org] 
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 12:29 PM
To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Subject: Re: [All] its-tool-ref vs. its-tools-ref

Jörg, Phil, Yves, all,

thanks for the feedback. I have changed this now to its:annotatorRef (HTML its-annotator-ref). See the diff for the spec, examples and the schemas attached. We can discuss this on the Monday call. If possible I'd like to make the final change to this before the call, so please send feedback before, if needed.

Thanks,

Felix

Am 01.12.12 17:22, schrieb Jörg Schütz:
> What about "its-annotator-ref" or "its:annotarRef" for the ITS annoation?
>
> Cheers -- Jörg
>
> On Dec 01, 2012 at 14:07 (UTC+1), Yves Savourel wrote:
>>> Any suggestions?
>>
>> agentsRef if we change toolsRef
>> or agentRef/revAgentRef if we change toolRef/revToolRef
>>
>> -ys
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
>> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 4:33 AM
>> To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
>> Subject: [All] its-tool-ref vs. its-tools-ref
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> while working on
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20
>> .html#list-of-elements-and-attributes
>>
>>
>> I realized that the provenance "reference to tools" attribute is very 
>> similar to the its tool annotation attribute:
>>
>> - in provenance: its-tool-ref or its:toolRef
>> - for ITS annotation: its-tools-ref or its:toolsRef
>>
>> I think we should rename its-tools-ref (that is the annotation
>> mechanism) including the XML counterpart its:toolsRef) to avoid 
>> confusion. Since that is a normative change we should get this done 
>> on Monday before the call. Any suggestions?
>>
>> - Felix
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Saturday, 1 December 2012 20:43:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 9 June 2013 00:25:03 UTC