Re: [ISSUE-55][ACTION-510] Make LQI and LQR similar to mtConfidence in structure.

[moving to ITS IG list]

Yves, Felix, David,
Apologies for late come back on this. As discussed I agree with this 
change, that restriction is unhelpful.

I've made those changes in the IG page for LQI on:
http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/XLIFF_1.2_Mapping

At the same time i moved over the provenance entry, expanding the 
example to show that both local and standoff styles can be used.

Leroy, can you check these examples align OK with our current 
implementation?

In the mean time I'll move over and check Text Analytics, LQR and MT 
confidence before next week's call.

Some other thoughts about the XLIFF mapping document:
1) Do you think we need a quick intro to each data category just 
introducing its role in an XLIFF setting?
2) Several data categories may be used in several places in an XLIFF 
file. Would it be helpful to have some way of checking correct use of 
ITS in a XLIFF file against these best practices, e.g. a merged schema?
3) Should we provide best practice on where ITs elements and attributes, 
e.g. the stand-off element for proveneance and LQI, should go in the 
XLIFF structrue
4) Should it have a TOC to aid navigation?
5) In the section about ITs rules at the end, should we add some 
explicit text about the role of these rules and (not) using its rules 
otherwise in xliff (also - I corrected the name of targetPointerRule 
rule in the example.)

cheers,
Dave

p.s. FYI - Leroy and the guys at UL have an initial XLIFF 2.0 
interoperability test running between SOLAS and CMS-LION

On 17/05/2013 11:33, Yves Savourel wrote:
>
> I agree: what is the rational for forcing the use of standoff notation 
> for spans with a single issue?
>
> -It may look a bit cramped to a human, but this is processed by machines.
>
> -Readers still have to implement both ways since it is just a 
> recommendation.
>
> -ys
>
> *From:*Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
> *Sent:* Friday, May 17, 2013 3:47 AM
> *To:* Dave Lewis
> *Cc:* Phil Ritchie; public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org; 
> kevin@spartanconsultinginc.com; chase@spartanconsultinginc.com
> *Subject:* Re: [ISSUE-55][ACTION-510] Make LQI and LQR similar to 
> mtConfidence in structure.
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> I may have missed your answer to
>
> "It is recommended that only the the stand-off mode of annotation is used and that its:locQualityIssueType, its:locQualityIssueComment, locQualityIssueSeverity, its:locQualityIssueProfileRef and its:locQualityIssueEnabled are not used within trans-unit or alt-trans elements."
>
>
> Asking here again since just yesterday I had students working with LQI 
> annotations, and the inline approach was much easier in terms of 
> creating, validating and analying the annotations.
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>
> Am 17.05.13 11:48, schrieb Dave Lewis:
>
>     On 12/05/2013 14:06, Phil Ritchie wrote:
>
>         In relation to the question posed about LQR: Can you re-phrase
>         the question. Are you asking if it is required at an inline
>         level?
>
>
>     Yes. Do you see LQR ever being used inline?
>
>     Dave
>