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

Re: [ACTION-256]: Compile and circulate itsTool examples togehter with proposal text

From: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 13:29:23 +0000
Message-ID: <5093CAB3.3090202@cs.tcd.ie>
To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
CC: "public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Yes, good point, I didn't address this issue in this revision.

I think that trying to agree a normative schema for the its:processInfo 
element might open an unnecessary can of worm in trying to get 
agreement, as we'd need to agree across a very wide range of tools type, 
i.e. MT, text analytics, TMS, CAT tools, terminology tools, QA tools etc 
etc.

So the suggestion is that we do not specify the schema for a 
its:processInfo element, i.e. we don't specify the use of its:toolInfo, 
and so have this as just as an example. The suggested solution to use 
instead is just to specify a IRI to reference the tool information, 
without any mention of the elements being referred to by the IRI.

This would work OK for XML. Further we would not even specify that the 
IRI points an element in a its:processInfo element. We might suggest 
this use of a its:processInfo in best practice but not mandate it. For 
example already in XLIFF1.2 there is a tool element with an ID that 
could be the target of the IRI.

For HTML this works when the tool info is external to the file. However, 
it doesn't work when the tool information is held with the file. Here we 
could use the XML in htm:script element solution that we use for mark-up 
in some of the data categories (e.g. Quality Issue). In this case we 
would need to specify in the spec the element type the IRI refers to.

So we would need the following wording:
"Where the IRI in not used in a its:toolRefs attribute in an XML 
document or not for pointing to an external resource in a its-tool-refs 
attributed in a HTML document, then it MUST refer to a its:toolInfo 
element."

Does that make sense, or are there some alternative formulations that 
would be better?

Note that we need to update the wording the the "Using ITS Markup in 
HTML5" to explain use of scripts for in-document XML in TML script that 
are not global rules, i.e. stand off here, provenance and quality issue.

cheers,
Dave
















On 02/11/2012 06:04, Felix Sasaki wrote:
> Hi Dave, all,
>
> in general this looks good. Just one question - didn't we discuss at 
> some point to have just URIs, without specifying actually what is 
> actually on the other side of the URI, that is without the 
> its:processInfo element? In your proposal you use that element but 
> don't define its content either. Yves also had raised concerns at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Oct/0000.html
> about the re-usability of its:processInfo.
>
> Sorry if I missed something & let's talk later,
>
> Felix
>
> 2012/11/1 Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie <mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>>
>
>     Hi,
>     The attached file contains a revision to Yves its-tools proposal.
>     I have also added revised text for mt confidence score and text
>     analysis annotation revised . Finally, I have also added at the
>     end the examples from these data categories, showing how the
>     engine identification information (which I've now removed from the
>     data category), can be repalced using the its-tools element.
>
>     There are comments that need to be addressed in the document. We
>     can go through these quickly if we wish in the meeting.
>
>     cheers,
>     Dave
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Felix Sasaki
> DFKI / W3C Fellow
>
Received on Friday, 2 November 2012 13:29:56 UTC

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