Re: [all] Question on mapping best practices [Issue-55]

I took the action iitem to propose mrk extensibility for 2.0
In fact I started before the AI was formally created in a response to
Rodolfo :-)

Dr. David Filip
=======================
LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS
University of Limerick, Ireland
telephone: +353-6120-2781
*cellphone: +353-86-0222-158*
facsimile: +353-6120-2734
mailto: david.filip@ul.ie



On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>wrote:

> Hi Felix,****
>
> ** **
>
> Yes, we obviously need to document such namespace and have a schema for it.
> ****
>
> In my view the wiki table is just a working document.****
>
> We should probably produce something like a Note if that’s what make most
> sense.****
>
> ** **
>
> But that’s not urgent: for now it’s good enough to go through the data
> categories and make sure there is no show stopper.****
>
> ** **
>
> One thing that seems to be clear is that the absence of extensibility in
> XLIFF <mrk> is a major headache, and likely not just for the ITS mapping.
> So we’ll try to resolve that on the XLIFF side. If that can go through it
> would help things a lot.****
>
> ** **
>
> -ys****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 27, 2012 12:20 AM
>
> *To:* Yves Savourel
> *Cc:* public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: [all] Question on mapping best practices [Issue-55]****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> 2012/10/26 Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>****
>
> Shaun's resolved the question by eliminating the ITS case.
> So we'll go with a 3rd namespace in the cases where all ITS attributes
> can't be used for some reasons.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Will that 3rd namespace be documented in the mapping document or somewhere
> else? After all the purpose is to have compatibility between ITS and XLIFF
> metadata approaches, no? ****
>
> ** **
>
> Felix****
>
> ** **
>
>  ****
>
>
> For documenting the conversation: I think Dave scribed our call.
>
> Cheers,
> -yves
>
> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 12:12 PM
> To: Yves Savourel
> Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [all] Question on mapping best practices
>
> Hi Yves, all,
>
> a side note: would it be possible to document the XLIFF mapping
> conversation? I don't mean the current state of the mapping, but the
> discussion and meetings (e.g. in Seattle and the call today). Without any
> minutes or at least summary it is hard to contribute or judge on proposes
> to change ITS. The announcement that there is a discussion
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Oct/0249.html
> and a follow up call doesn't provide a lot of details.
>
> Wrt to your comments and ITS mechanisms: why use them at all? Why not
> specifying the mapping in general, e.g. in a separate profile of ITS "how
> to use ITS in XLIFF"? We then won't need to use any ITS mechanisms at all -
> an ITS implementation can use the mapping or not.
>
> Above answer may be not enough, let's take it from where.
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
> 2012/10/26 Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
> Hi all,
>
> While mapping ITS to XLIFf we ran into cases of mapping that may occur
> elsewhere and for which an ITS guideline may be helpful.
>
> Here is the case:
>
> The localization note has two pieces of information:  a) the text of the
> note and b) a type (description|alert)
>
> When mapping an inline note to XLIFF we can use this:
>
> <mrk mtype='x-itsNote' comment='[text of the note]'
> its:locNoteType='alert'>...</mrk>
>
> Or this:
>
> <mrk mtype='x-itsNote' comment='[text of the note]'
> ZZZ:locNoteType='alert'>...</mrk>
>
> The comment attribute is where XLIFF is expected to put the note, and
> because there is no equivalent to the note type we use a non-XLIFF
> attribute there. The question is can/should we use the ITS attribute or
> another one?
>
> In both cases if we want to process the file with an ITS processor, we
> have to use global rules:
>
> <its:locNoteRule selector="//mrk[@its:locNoteType='alert']"
>  locNotePointer="@comment" locNoteType='alert'/>
>
> <its:locNoteRule selector="//mrk[@its:locNoteType='description']"
>  locNotePointer="@comment" locNoteType='description'/>
>
> or
>
> <its:locNoteRule selector="//mrk[@ZZZ:locNoteType='alert']"
>  locNotePointer="@comment" locNoteType='alert'/>
>
> <its:locNoteRule selector="//mrk[@ZZZ:locNoteType='description']"
>  locNotePointer="@comment" locNoteType='description'/>
>
> I think both would work.
> But we're not sure if the best thing to do for the local attribute is to
> use a native ITS attribute or define a new namespace and use something from
> there.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> -yves
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Felix Sasaki
> DFKI / W3C Fellow
>
> ****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> Felix Sasaki****
>
> DFKI / W3C Fellow****
>
> ** **
>