RE: issue-41 (mtconfidence), issue-42 (mtConfidence, textAnalysisAnnotation, quality)

Hi Felix, all,

> This creates problems. As Dave and Declan ask at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Sep/0085.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Sep/0087.html
> overriding semantics in ITS 1.0 is always complete, and ITS 2.0 so far is the same.
> I would have to change my whole "artifical output" implementation to change that, 
> so I would probably object.

Actually, I think the bit "Override semantics are always complete, that is all information that is specified in one rule element is overridden by the next one." has been added in 2.0. It's not in 1.0 (http://www.w3.org/TR/its/#selection-precedence).

That may have been the intent, but I even wonder if it was important with the initial data category.
Note also that, the wording is not as specific 

If I understand this correctly you are saying that:

- If we have a data category with 3 information AAA, BBB and CCC.
- If there is a global rule that define AAA='a' and BBB='b' for a node N
- and the same node N has a local attribute that specify CCC='c', the 3 information for that for N will be AAA=undefined, BBB=undefined, CCC='c' and not AAA='a', BBB='b' and CCC='c'?

If I misunderstood, then forget the rest of this email.

If not:

This is not very natural: how can something undefined (the local AAA and BBB) override anything: they don't exist.

This also prevent the user to define some information using pointers globally and complement the information with ITS local attributes, like this:

<doc xmlns:i='http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its' i:version='2.0'>
<i:rules version='2.0'>
<i:locQualityIssueRule selector='//z' locQualityIssueTypePointer='@type' locQualityIssueSeverityPointer='@score' />
</i:rules>
<p>Text with <z type='other' score='1' i:locQualityIssueComment='comment'>error</z></p>
</doc>

An example where not overriding undefined local information would be useful is the Storage Size data category: often the encoding and the line break type of the storage will be the same for the whole document, but the size constraint will be different locally. Having to repeat everything over and over is a rather un-efficient.

It seems 2.0 has several data categories with more than a single information. And obliterating existing information defined globally because one *other* information is set locally used may prove challenging.

Cheers,
-yves

Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2012 22:03:32 UTC