W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-powderwg@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Comments on Nov-14 WD for ITS IG also Re: POWDER comments: multiple/alternate displaytext strings? (eg. different languages/scripts)

From: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:38:13 +0000
Message-ID: <498AC195.9020603@philarcher.org>
To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
CC: Public POWDER <public-powderwg@w3.org>

Copied to the public list for tracking purposes.

Thanks very much for this Felix. We'll use the revised rules file (and 
I'll make sure that the link works!)



Felix Sasaki wrote:
> Here is a different version
> <its:rules version="1.0"
> xmlns:its="http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its"
> xmlns:wdr="http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder#">
> <!-- This is the ITS Rules file for the Protocol for Web Description 
> Resources (POWDER). See http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#localization -->
> <its:translateRule translate="no" selector="//wdr:*"/>  
> <its:translateRule translate="yes" 
> selector="//wdr:tag|//wdr:label|//wdr:comment|//wdr:displaytext"/>
> </its:rules>
> The change is that the first translateRule now says
> selector="//wdr:*"
> that is, all elements in the XML-serialization are not translatable, 
> except the ones in the 2nd translateRule.
> Felix
> Phil Archer wrote:
>> I need to check the doc but the file itself is at 
>> http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/powder_itsrules.xml
>> Thanks for your help.
>> Phil
>> Felix Sasaki wrote:
>>> Phil Archer wrote:
>>>> Felix Sasaki wrote:
>>>>> Hi Phil (private mail),
>>>>> sorry for the late reply and thank you very much in advance!. Your 
>>>>> server seems to be offline, could you check again?
>>>> Yes, it's offline for some reason - that's cheap hosting packages 
>>>> for you!
>>>> But, it's now where it should be at 
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/powder-dr/20090204-diff.html
>>> Thanks! The section looks good to me, but the link to the rules file
>>> http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/powder-itsrules.xml
>>> Does not work. Could you check again?
>>> Felix
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Phil
>>>>> Felix
>>>>> Phil Archer wrote:
>>>>>> Thanks Felix,
>>>>>> I think I see a way forward then. As long we make it clear that 
>>>>>> any linguistic processing is to be done independently of POWDER, 
>>>>>> and that any ITS tags are lost in the transformation from POWDER 
>>>>>> to POWDER -S (i.e. it's turned into RDF/OWL) then we should be OK.
>>>>>> To this end I've added an extra couple of lines, visible 
>>>>>> temporarily at [1]. I'd be grateful if you could check the ITS 
>>>>>> Rules file which is temporarily at [2] as well (I've just edited 
>>>>>> the one Yves sent).
>>>>>> OK?
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>> Phil.
>>>>>> [1] http://philarcher.org/powder/dr/20090204-diff.html#localization
>>>>>> [2] http://philarcher.org/powder/ITS_Rules/powder_itsrules.xml
>>>>>> Felix Sasaki wrote:
>>>>>>> Hello Phil, all,
>>>>>>> Phil Archer さんは書きました:
>>>>>>>> Yves, Dan,
>>>>>>>> Over the last week or so I've been working through all the 
>>>>>>>> comments we've received (again, double checking everything 
>>>>>>>> before we go to PR) and looked again at those you sent [1, 2], 
>>>>>>>> both of which relate to language/translation issues. I realised 
>>>>>>>> that there was more to do...
>>>>>>>> Initial lack of support for xml:lang was an omission. I've now 
>>>>>>>> implemented support for it in the relevant elements in the 
>>>>>>>> POWDER Processor I've been working on [3] and it's already 
>>>>>>>> supported in the other tools we have.
>>>>>>>> For example [4] shows you the output of a processor given a 
>>>>>>>> POWDER doc that makes it very plain that anything on example.com 
>>>>>>>> or example.org is red in multiple languages.
>>>>>>>> I've also amended the relevant documentation to make it clear 
>>>>>>>> that xml:lang attributes are appropriate for use on the 
>>>>>>>> displaytext, comment and label elements. See the change log at 
>>>>>>>> [5] for pointers to the relevant text.
>>>>>>>> Although xml:lang attributes may be added to tag elements, we 
>>>>>>>> don't recommend it for the reasons shown in the new section on 
>>>>>>>> localisation.
>>>>>>>> Regretfully, it does not appear to be possible to include the 
>>>>>>>> ITS tag set. This is because although POWDER is encoded in XML, 
>>>>>>>> it transports RDF and can be transformed into RDF/OWL. 
>>>>>>>> Therefore, although it looks like XML, one really has to think 
>>>>>>>> of POWDER as RDF which interprets XML attributes as datatype 
>>>>>>>> properties. This means that they can only appear in node 
>>>>>>>> elements and things like its:translate do not have the desired 
>>>>>>>> semantics within POWDER.
>>>>>>>> Therefore, unless there is a way to use ITS with RDF, we can't 
>>>>>>>> integrate it as Yves has suggested.
>>>>>>> The idea of ITS is to be available for localization and 
>>>>>>> internationalization of XML formats. Some specifications, like 
>>>>>>> Powder, define XML only as one serialization for their data 
>>>>>>> model. That restricts the possibilities for ITS, but IMO it does 
>>>>>>> not make them impossible. The important bit here is that 
>>>>>>> ITS-processing is independent of Powder processing. As Yves said:
>>>>>>> "The idea is that the rules document is available to whoever 
>>>>>>> needs to localize or *preform* some linguistic-related tasks on the
>>>>>>> document. "
>>>>>>> So one could say "If a user needs to localize Powder documents, 
>>>>>>> ITS provides a means to achieve this within the XML serialization 
>>>>>>> of Powder".
>>>>>>> I agree that currently there is no way to use ITS within RDF on 
>>>>>>> the data model, serialization-independent level of RDF, and that 
>>>>>>> this would be desireable, though probably hard to achieve in a 
>>>>>>> timely fashion. Nevertheless I am not aware of any other means to 
>>>>>>> express localization requirements on the data model level of RDF. 
>>>>>>> Hence, ITS would solve the problem at least for one serialization.
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Felix
>>>>>>>> If you have any further comments, or if you disagree with our 
>>>>>>>> action here, do please let us know.
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>> Phil.
>>>>>>>> [1] 
>>>>>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2008Dec/0046.html 
>>>>>>>> [2] 
>>>>>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2009Jan/0020.html 
>>>>>>>> [3] http://i-sieve.com/cgi-bin/processor.cgi
>>>>>>>> [4] http://tinyurl.com/c62tsn
>>>>>>>> [5] http://philarcher.org/powder/dr/20090203-diff.html#sincelc1
>>>>>>>> Yves Savourel wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Phil,
>>>>>>>>>> OK, now I'm being a little lazy - because I'm trying to 
>>>>>>>>>> expedite this ASAP and I admit to only having seen the ITS doc 
>>>>>>>>>> for the first time this afternoon. You've kindly sent us an 
>>>>>>>>>> ITS rules file - is the idea that every POWDER doc should link 
>>>>>>>>>> to this? Or at least, every POWDER doc that includes localised 
>>>>>>>>>> tags? Or should we embed the rules in the schema?
>>>>>>>>> The idea is that the rules document is available to whoever 
>>>>>>>>> needs to localize or preform some linguistic-related tasks on the
>>>>>>>>> document.
>>>>>>>>> It is certainly not necessary to have the rules in every 
>>>>>>>>> document instance.
>>>>>>>>> Including them in the schema could be a good way to make sure 
>>>>>>>>> it's readily accessible.
>>>>>>>>> Or it could be a separate document (with a link to it in the 
>>>>>>>>> spec). From the view point of the ITS processor it doesn't really
>>>>>>>>> matter.
>>>>>>>>> -yves

Phil Archer
w. http://philarcher.org/
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 10:39:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:06:05 UTC