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

RE: [ACTIOn-275] Generic stand-off elements

From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 06:27:11 -0700
To: "'Felix Sasaki'" <fsasaki@w3.org>
CC: <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <assp.0658f00895.assp.0658fb52a3.00b601cdbceb$986143a0$c923cae0$@com>
Hi Felix,


I understand your concern about the validation.

Maybe the newest versions of XSD could possibly have conditional validation so the two sets of attributes are mutually exclusive. But it’s probably not worth trying this.


If there are more drawbacks in simplifying we should stick with separate elements.


Maybe the names of the elements and the ref attributes could follow a similar pattern to so the user can see they are about the same thing. But that’s secondary.





From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 6:17 AM
To: Yves Savourel
Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Subject: Re: [ACTIOn-275] Generic stand-off elements


Hi Yves, all,

sorry for the delay this causes, but I'm against generalizing to "standofflist".

>From a consumers perspective I can understand the benefit: have a method that resolves the references, graps the standoff list(s) and is done.

I'm worried about producers, tools or humans. I am not able to say on the top of my had what attributes can appear on "item". If I count correctly, currently it would be seven attributes from provenance, and five from "quality issue". But if I'm producing an "item" element, can it contain both? Should a consuming application just pass all attributes or validate against a schema for item validates against proveance or quality issues? What does that mean for conformance testing?

All these questions are not needed if there are separate wrapper elements as in the current draft. Also, your questions a) and b) can be solved by adding to
a statement that what is said here also relates to standoff markup with provenance and quality issue, and by renaming the section accordingly.

Again, sorry for the delay this causes.



Am 02.11.2012 22 <tel:02.11.2012%2022> :30 schrieb "Yves Savourel" <ysavourel@enlaso.com>:

Hi all,

I had the action item to summarize the proposal for having common stand-off elements that was started here:

The idea is to have a single ITS element (e.g. <its:standOffList> but any other meaningful name will do), that would be used for all stand-off annotations.

It would hold one or more <its:item/> (e.g. or some more meaningful but still generic name) where the attributes of the data category being specified can be set.

Here is the example 68
With the proposed notation:

<!DOCTYPE html>
    <meta charset=utf-8>
    <script id=its-standoff-no-2 type=application/xml>
      <its:standOffList xml:id="pr1">
      <its:standOfflist xml:id="pr2">
            transPerson="John Doe"
            transRevPerson="Tommy Atkins"
            provRef="http://www.examplelsp.com/excontent987/legal/prov/e6354 http://www.vistatec.com/job-12-7-15-X31/reviewed/prov/re8573469"/>
            transRevPerson="John Smith"
    <p its-translation-provenance-records-ref="#pr1"> This paragraph was translated from the machine.</p>
    <p its-translation-provenance-records-ref="#pr2">This text was translated directly by a person.</p>

A side note on HTML5 and stand-off: here the example is not going to work (regardless of the element names) because we said that we needed to have a single root element per <script>. So:

a) either we need yet another special element (or maybe its:rules can be used?) to enclose the two element with xml:id,

or b) we put each standOffList in a separate <script>, and duplicate the xml:id of the list in the id of the <script>. Since the ID in the <script> section are technically a different document (i.e. it will produce a separate DOM, this shold be OK, no?

Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2012 13:27:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:08:24 UTC