- From: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:07:44 +0100
- To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Hi Yves, thanks for this - comments below: > Hi Dave, all > > Thanks for the updated text Dave. > > A few notes: > > 1) Spelling > > The text seems to be in UK English (e.g. organisation vs organization). > I think we use US spelling in the ITS specification. good point, i'll fix this. > > 2) IRI vs URI > > In ITS 1.0 we used URI. I can't recall exactly why (maybe IRI was not final yet then?). But we need to be consistent and use one or the other for 2.0. Yes, this occurred to me and i was also going to raise it in general. I think to be consistent with best practice of the internationalization activity, not to mention the inherently global market for conforming products we should go for IRI when not otherwise constrained. > > 3) Example text (very minor) > > To avoid the wrath of the purists, in the example for local markup its-trans-agent="C3PO" should be its-trans-agent="C-3PO", if it refers to what I think. > A shocking oversight on my part, the force is indeed strong in you :-) On a serious note though, are we restricted in using copyrighted or trademarked terms in our examples? Felix? > 4) Global rules > > ... > > I think the proposed global rules don't cover the first goal. We can associate a prov(Revision)Agent and a prov(Revision)AgentRef defined in a global rule with selected nodes, but we cannot tell that a given element or attribute of the host vocabulary has existing constructs that implement such information. > > In other words: the values of prov(Revision)Agent and prov(Revision)AgentRef can be held only by ITS attributes. > > For example how would we indicate that 'agent' and 'revAgent' are the equivalent of its:provAgent and its:provRevisionAgent in this document: > > <text> > <title>Translation Provenance Agent: Local Test in XML</title> > <body> > <par agent='C-P3O' revAgent='Luke'>This paragraph was machine translated and then postedited.</par> > <legalnotice agent='Luke'>This legal text was subject to translation by manual means.</legalnotice> > </body> > </text> > > (DocBook or DITA may have better examples). > > I think we'll need four extra attributes in the global rules: provAgentPointer, provAgentRefPointer, provRevionAgentPointer, and provRevisionAgentRefPointer. See the Localization Note data category for an example of similar pattern (http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#locNote-implementation) > I guess i was just trying to keep things simple, but this is a good point - keeping the Ref&Pointer pattern make sense and keeps this data category consistent with the others. I will address this. This might make definition a bit lengthy, so does it make sense to split translation agent and revision agent into two different data category definitions? Its sort of an editorial decision. cheers, Dave > Cheers, > -yves > > >
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2012 11:07:58 UTC