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

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

From: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:32:48 +0000
Message-ID: <50BCAA00.4050605@cs.tcd.ie>
To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
CC: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Hi yves,
Sounds you like you answered the question, but yes, the itsTools defines 
the tool which generated the ITS annotation while provenance defines 
agents that did the process, i.e. translation and translation Revision, 
which may not be the same thing.

Also ItsTools doesn't help in many cases as a translation(revision) 
provenance indicator since these processes change the content but 
doesn't necessarily add any ITS annotation (unless it is MT confidence).

So they are distinct enough use cases.

cheers,
Dave


On 01/12/2012 13:00, Yves Savourel wrote:
>> I understand that we selected that that specific data category needed to allow for two tool's references: toolRef and revToolRef.
> Wow.. that was bad English. Let me rephrase:
>
> I understand that we selected to allow the Provenance data category to have its own mechanism because it needed to specify two tool's references: one for translation, the other for revision.
>
> And now that I'm writing this I realize those tools may be different from the tool that does the ITS annotation, which is what toolsRef provide...
>
> Never mind then... forget my previous email.
> -yves
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yves Savourel [mailto:ysavourel@enlaso.com]
> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 5:52 AM
> To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [All] its-tool-ref vs. its-tools-ref
>
> Hi all,
>
> What bugs me in toolRef/revToolRef and toolsRef is that Provenance's toolRef is doing basically the same thing as toolsRef. And that provenance can also use toolsRef: this is bound to be confusing.
>
> I understand that we selected that that specific data category needed to allow for two tool's references: toolRef and revToolRef.
>
> Maybe another solution would be to allow the main toolsRef to be set for two types of provenance, something like:
>
> toolsRef="provenance|uri1 provenance-ref|uri2"
>
> Then the breach on the general pattern of using toolsRef to specify the tools would be less than having a whole data category define its own way.
>
> cheers,
> -yves
>
>
> -----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 Monday, 3 December 2012 13:26:51 UTC

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