Re: [all] call for concensus on Translation Provenance Agent (related to ISSUE-22)

Hi Felix,
Yes, I'd considered that, as it has the nice feature of offering easier 
extensibility of agent types (though perhaps this isn't necessarily a 
good thing for interoperability)

However, I think this approach runs into difficulty if you need both 
types of agent associated with the same node. This would be a common 
occurrence in postediting of MT use cases.

In global rules, you'd need two rules with the same selection, but the 
latter rule will completely replace the former with our current rule 
precedence scheme.

In the local mode you have two attribute with the same name and then 
also no way of knowing which type associates with which agentRef.

cheers,
Dave



On 26/07/2012 07:56, Felix Sasaki wrote:
> Hi Dave, all,
>
> About
>
> "Two types of Translation Provenance Agent data categories are needed 
> to identify:"
>
> and the data category in general: wouldn't it be possible to have just 
> two attributes "agent" and "agentRef", and an additional one "type" 
> with the values "transAgent" or "revisionAgent"? In that they there 
> are less attributes and also less pointer attributes (see Yves' 
> comment). It would look like this I think:
>
> <its:agentRule selector="/html/body/par" 
> its:agentRef="http://www.onlinemtexample.com/2012/7/25/legal-v1/wsdl/" 
>  type="transAgent" />
>
>
> <its:agentRule selector="/html/body/par" agent="John Doe, 
> acme-CAT-v2.3" type="revisionAgent"/>
>
>
> Small editorial thing: your examples above said "its:domainRule", I 
> changed that to "agentRule".
>
>
> Another note: in ITS global rules, we always used attributes without a 
> namespace, e.g. "agents" instead of "its:agents".
>
>
>
> Felix
>
>
>
> 2012/7/25 Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie <mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>>
>
>     Hi all,
>     Given the implementation commitment to provenance and the previous
>     posting on this subject,
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Jun/0161.html
>     please find attached the proposed specification for the
>     Translation Provenance Agent plus the example files.
>
>     As a reminder, and as discussed in the original post and mentioned
>     at the last WG call, provenance covers two essentially independent
>     approaches: agent provenance, (which is this one), and standoff
>     provenance, which we are treating as two individual data
>     categories. I will send on the standoff provenance call for
>     concensus shortly.
>
>     Regards,
>     Dave
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Felix Sasaki
> DFKI / W3C Fellow
>