W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > February 2013

Re: [Issue-68] Disambiguation (and term)

From: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 00:20:19 +0000
Message-ID: <512BFFC3.4090003@cs.tcd.ie>
To: Tadej Stajner <tadej.stajner@ijs.si>
CC: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Hi Tadej, Guys,

A typographical question, in the word file you have:
"

*Note:*

Text Analysis is primarily intended for textual content. Nevertheless, 
the data category can also be used in multi-media contexts. Example: 
objects on an image could be annotated with DBpedia IRIs. [CL1] <#_msocom_1>

When serializing the ITS Text Analysis 
<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#Disambiguation>data 
category markup in HTML, the preferred way is to serialize in RDFa Lite 
or Microdata due to the existing search and crawling infrastructure that 
is able to consume these formats.
"

------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the two paragraphs seem to be separate topics, so they should be 
under separate Note heading I think - assuming the issue about RDFs 
mapping is a note?

Further, I don't know if I agree with the wording of the second 
paragraph. Sure, the example makes the valid point that Text Analysis 
can do the same job as the RDFa lite. But these are potentially 
different use cases. For example it may be that the authors add text 
annotation to feed into a subsequent terminology process, but use ITS so 
they can strip out the ta annotation so it can be easily stripped out 
again later, i.e. they have no intention to add the equivalent markup 
into the HTML. Also, if the confidence score is a relevant piece of 
information, then the RDFa solution should be 'preferred'.

I'd suggest either moving this note to some best practice, or change the 
wording just so it highlights the equivalence of the mapping, but 
doesn't try to go into detail of when one approach is preferred over the 
other.

cheers,
Dave



On 22/02/2013 14:45, Tadej Stajner wrote:
> Hi, all,
> after some discussion, this is the proposal we came up. Felix already 
> summarized it, now I'm attaching the actual document and the examples.
> -- Tadej
>
> On 2/22/2013 12:31 PM, Felix Sasaki wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> Marcis, Tadej, Christian and I worked on a text proposal. Tadej will 
>> send that out later today. Summary of the change:
>> - renaming disambiguation
>> - changing attribute prefixes to "ta"
>> - dropping the "level"
>> - rewriting the disambiguation section - but not changing behaviour.
>>
>> So I hope that we can close the issue next week, and implementers can 
>> start to change the attribute names in their tests and drop "level".
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Felix
>>
>> Am 22.02.13 12:17, schrieb Dr. David Filip:
>>> Felix, Dave,
>>>
>>> It seems based on the discussions up to date that this issue has been
>>> resolved and even addressed by Tadej in the test suit
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Feb/0027.html 
>>>
>>>
>>> However, editorial actions to change the spec accordingly do not seem
>>> to have been assigned so far
>>> [agenda:] 
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Feb/0089.html
>>> [minutes:] http://www.w3.org/2013/02/18-mlw-lt-minutes.html
>>> Tadej is drafting the changes based on the above minutes
>>> @Tadej, will those changes be ready to be assigned to a co-editor by
>>> the Monday call?
>>> Assigning these should be made an agenda point on Monday in order to
>>> be able to close Issue-68
>>>
>>> Thanks for attention
>>> dF
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2013 00:21:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 9 June 2013 00:25:08 UTC