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

Re: [ISSUE-6] Re: [ACTION-123]

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:40:12 +0200
Message-ID: <CAL58czq8J5WmjdQ5uHrs4-6Y7CNXc9WbH0KO8O_XScSXVPisYA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: Moritz Hellwig <Moritz.Hellwig@cocomore.com>, "public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
(co-chair hat on)

Dave, all, I know that there is interest in the group about the process
model topic, but we shouldn't do step two before we are sure about step
one: There are lot's of missing pieces in the current ITS 2.0 draft, see
and there are lots of data categories that need input in the upcoming
weeks, see

Please, use your time (I know that everybody is busy before the summer
break) to fill these gaps asap, before moving other (even non normative)
discussions forward. I esp. disagree with putting effort into
"To go forward in firming up these definitions, I propose we add some input
and output plus some conditions on these", before the gaps mentioned above
are filled.



2012/6/25 Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>

>  Hi Moritz,
> Thanks for following up on this action, which addresses the ongoing
> ISSUE-6 - let keep discussion under this thread.
> First we should remember the role such a model should play in ITS2.0,
> specifically we need process values for both the readiness and the progress
> data categories. These values should also be used in a consistent way for
> the value of the activity object in the PROV WG proposed for stand-off
> provenance mark-up.
> However, as discussed in Dublin, this is a complex topic with lots of
> different views, so we are not aiming for a normative outcome, but some
> best practice document to accompany ITS2.0.
> To facilitate this I suggest we capture process definition separately  and
> hopefully agree a common set of process names using wiki page:
> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Metadata_and_workflow_comparison
> but do this in parallel to, and therefore not holding up, the normative
> data category definitions.
> I've moved Pedro's suggested process names onto this page but reworked
> them to:
> - provide names the might be more broadly accessible, and in the style of
> data categories (i.e. with hyphens rather than camel case)
> - provide a little more in terms of process definition
> - add a few processes I thought were missing
> - group under some headings, again to help communicate between different
> viewpoints, and provided some further structure through suggested subclass
> relationship between some process definitions.
> To go forward in firming up these definitions, I propose we add some input
> and output plus some conditions on these. Then we can rerun the exercise
> Arle started with the included table to cross referencing these again CRUD
> usage of data categories.
> At this point then, I'd asked interested people to review this page and
> either provide comments/revisions to existing processes or suggest other
> one we need.
> cheers,
> Dave
> On 22/06/2012 17:17, Moritz Hellwig wrote:
>  Hello,****
> ** **
> in Dublin we talked about processes and whether we can find a common
> (basic) set of processes that we can use for ITS 2.0. So Id like to
> trigger a discussion to find if we can agree on such an ontology. I think
> it was Pedro who was kind enough to provide two models and a set of
> processes we can discuss:
> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements#Process_Model
> ****
> ** **
> I favour Model 1. And I think there definitely should be a difference
> between processes that apply to the target, the source or both.****
> ** **
> Could we take the models and list as a model and collect which processes
> are needed from your side? Or can maybe be omitted?****
> ** **
> Cheers,
> Moritz****
> ** **

Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow
Received on Monday, 25 June 2012 08:40:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:08:17 UTC