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

[ISSUE-74]: Comment on ITS 2.0 WD-its20-20121206 - Section 1.1 (Relation to ITS 1.0 and New Principles), was: Re: Comment on ITS 2.0 WD-its20-20121206 - Section 1.1 (Relation to ITS 1.0 and New Principles)

From: Dr. David Filip <David.Filip@ul.ie>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:14:01 +0000
Message-ID: <CANw5LK=Sg8iPcz_KQON59jkOZhZeQPp9bSphzBLhvJCXO4hR5w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Lieske, Christian" <christian.lieske@sap.com>
Cc: "public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org>
Dear Christina,

Your comment has been assigned
ISSUE-74:
Comment on ITS 2.0 WD-its20-20121206 - Section 1.1 (Relation to ITS
1.0 and New Principles)

@All, Reference to ISSUE-74 should be used in ongoing e-mail
discussion of this comment.

Rgds
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


On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Lieske, Christian
<christian.lieske@sap.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Please find below comments/observations/questions/ideas concerning the ITS
> 2.0 working draft dated December 6, 2012
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/).  Please feel free to contact
> me for clarifications if anything is unclear.
>
>
>
> Although Section 1.1 (Relation to ITS 1.0 and New Principles) only is an
> “informative” one, it seems important to me. It is about the first bit of
> content that a reader of the Working Draft (WD) gets to see. Thus, many
> readers presumably expect to find an overview/orientation. Thus, the section
> may benefit for example from mentioning additional high-level
> differences/changes between ITS 1.0 and ITS 2.0.
>
>
>
> Here’s a more complete list of differences/changes that I could imagine to
> be covered in the section:
>
>
>
> 1. list of additional data categories (that’s already in the current draft)
>
> 2. modified data categories (e.g. "termConfidence" for term, or the model
> for Ruby)
>
> 3. query language on rules element
>
> 4. parameters/variables in selectors
>
> 5. modified selectors (absolute and relative)
>
> 6. toolsRef to record which tools generated data category related
> information
>
> 7. changes to conformance section (e.g. clause for processing ITS with HTML)
>
> 8. conversion to NIF
>
> 9. more “implementation hints” (e.g. RDFa Lite)
>
>
>
> Furthermore, the section could mention some additional background:
>
>
>
> 10. (implicit) clustering of data categories (as in
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its2req-20120524/#Descriptions_of_proposed_metadata_categories)
>
> 11. liasons and coordination (e.g. attention to Unicode registered
> extensions "u" and "t")
>
> 12. focus on real-world use cases (thus for example no “…confidence” for all
> data categories, since that would hardly be needed)
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christian
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 18 January 2013 13:15:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:32:26 UTC