Re: [All] high level use cases not yet ready to publish, please have another look - TCD/Leroy -

Hi Christian,
thanks for this - comments below:

On 03/03/2013 16:54, Lieske, Christian wrote:
>
> Hi Leroy,
>
> While editing the section on "CMIS, W3C Provenance" the following 
> specific questions came up. Hopefully, it is alright to contact you 
> with them ...
>
> 1.Did I revise the "description" properly?
>

This seems fine.

> 2."Specification of global rules for other data categories across 
> multiple documents": Shall I interpret this as "All ITS 2.0 data 
> categories covered"?
>

I actually updated this section to cover in more detail how each of the 
implemented (i.e. not all) data categories is used - thanks for pointing 
out that this was missing.

> 3.Did I revise the "implementation status/issues" properly?
>

Yes, though i also added pointers to related detailed examples in best 
practice and also suggested extensions to the PROV-O vocabulary.

thanks,
Dave


> Thanks in advance for your help.
>
> Of course, you are welcome to modify my current draft to come up with 
> an enhanced version:
>
> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Use_cases_-_high_level_summary#Integrating_ITS_2.0.2C_Content_Management_Interoperability_Services.2C_and_W3C_Provenance
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christian
>
> *From:*Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 16, 2013 2:34 AM
> *To:* public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org 
> <mailto:public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
> *Subject:* [All] high level use cases not yet ready to publish, please 
> have another look
>
> Hi all, esp. Christian,
>
> I had a brief look at
> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Use_cases_-_high_level_summary
> and I think this is not yet ready even for a first public working draft.
>
> I won't point to specific sections here, but please have another look 
> at "your" section with the following in mind:
>
> - Don't mention something that is not in the spec anymore, e.g. 
> "Disambiguation". Call this "Text Analysis Annotation".
> - The "More Information and Implementation Status/Issues" sections are 
> extremely heterogenous. Please, re-write them following this simple 
> pattern taken from ENLASO:
>
>
> [
>
> Tool: Okapi Framework (ENLASO).
>
>   * Detailed slides at http://tinyurl.com/8tmg49d
>     <http://tinyurl.com/8tmg49d>
>   * Running software: http://code.google.com/p/okapi/downloads/list
>     <http://code.google.com/p/okapi/downloads/list>
>   * Source code: http://code.google.com/p/okapi/source/browse/
>     <http://code.google.com/p/okapi/source/browse/>
>   * General documentation: http://www.opentag.com/okapi/wiki/
>     <http://www.opentag.com/okapi/wiki/>
>
> ]
>
> - Don't just "list" data categories. Describe their benefit in your 
> implementation.
> - Use a simple & sweet language style like e.g. in
> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Use_cases_-_high_level_summary#Simple_Machine_Translation
>
>
> The document should be a *high level* overview. Currently it has 20 
> pages - that's too long. We can provide details & more text in other 
> publications.
>
> NOTE for the EC project folks: this document is an important part for 
> us to raise awareness for Rome and to give input for the Luxembourg 
> review. Please invest the time to take above considerations into account.
>
> Please, do that by *Tuesday EOB 19 February.*
>
> Christian, what are your thoughts on editing this and making this 
> ready for publication, also in terms fo timing.
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>