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

Re: action-283

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 02:18:38 +0100
Message-ID: <CAL58czoZ+n9j75QyKrMqiR5_iNfi+aM+VROUj6Y2LFdgotSBHQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Hi Dave, taking the list into the loop to get some thoughts,

I started editing provenance, but then stopped. Your changes make sense,
but they create a disalignment with other data categories, e.g.
localization quality issues has not the mutually exclusive version of
pointer attributes that you created. I also have problems to understand
nesting like these:

[
    Exactly one of the following:
            o    At least one of the following:
                          Exactly the following:
]

How about deleting all pointer attributes, except the pointer
"provRecsRefPointer" for standoff? This would make things easier and follow
the patterns Yves proposed for localization quality issue at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Nov/0103.html

I'm not trying to re-open the general "too many global rules" issue - this
is specific to provenance and trying to avoid things like the "Exactly one
... " nesting above.

Best,

Felix

2012/11/13 Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>

> On 12/11/2012 22:47, Felix Sasaki wrote:
>
>> And another one - can you help me with this:
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/**International/multilingualweb/**lt/track/actions/283<https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/283>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Felix
>>
> Hi Felix,
>
> thanks for reminding me, I'd not addressed that in the update to the
> provenance text i sent last night. i've added some text (hihglighted in
> green) in the attached update covering;
> - the warning of what the attributes in standoff relate to - copied from
> qualityissues
> - text on the use of script for containing provRecs standoff internally in
> HTML
>
> I also fixed the text about the pointers attributes not being used in HTML.
>
> finally, after a bit of thought, i removed the note about the order of the
> provRec element within provRecs being significant in relation to temporal
> ordering. This information won't always be available but we don't have a
> mechanism for indicating when it is, so better i think just to drop it - it
> was just something i added, not really driven by a partner use case and the
> PROV records can provide this sort of detail if needed.
>
> cheers,
> Dave
>
>
>
>


-- 
Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2012 01:19:03 UTC

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