- From: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
- Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:50:46 +0000
- To: Chase Tingley <chase@spartansoftwareinc.com>
- CC: public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org, public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org, kevin@spartanconsultinginc.com
- Message-ID: <5103D126.4020505@cs.tcd.ie>
Thanks Chase. A logical follow-on question for LocQualityIssue implementors (as the other data category with stand off markup with multiple elements): Should we make the order of locQualityIssue element within a locQualityIssues stand off element reflect the order they were added in the same way? i.e. after the definition of locQualityIssues we add text: "The order of its:locQualityIssue elements within a its:locQualityIssues element should reflect the order with which they were added to the document, with the most recently added one listed first." Phil, guys? Regards, Dave On 25/01/2013 19:37, Chase Tingley wrote: > Hi Dave, > > That sounds good. > > Thanks > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie > <mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>> wrote: > > Hi Chase, > Thanks for getting back to us on this. > > In relation to ordering of its:provenanceRecord I propose > therefore to add the following sentence to the provenance section, > after we introduce this element: > > "The order of its:provenanceRecord elements within a > its:provenanceRecords element should reflect the order with which > they were added to the document, with the most recently added one > listed first." > > Can signal whether you are happy with this? > > Then given, your comments also on the time annotation issue below, > I think I will be able to close this issue. > > thanks again for this comment, > Regards, > Dave > > > On 23/01/2013 18:17, Chase Tingley wrote: >> Hi Dave & Pablo, >> >> Thanks for the responses. Comments inline >> >> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie >> <mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>> wrote: >> >> Hi Chase, Kevin, all, >> First thanks to Pablo for his response. Some further >> responses inline below related to timing: >> >> On 15/01/2013 17:33, Pablo Nieto Caride wrote: >>> >>> Hi Felix, all, >>> >>> >ii) Similarly, does the ordering of provenance records within a >>> <provenanceRecords> element make a statement about the >>> (temporal) order in which the records were created? If an >>> ordering is implied, it raises questions about the implied >>> ordering in a document where provenance records are declared >>> both globally and via local markup. >>> >>> Certainly the spec does not talk about temporal order, but >>> given that records cannot be declared both globally and via >>> local markup for a single element, the way I see it, and to >>> simplify things, each provenance record should be older than >>> the previous one. >>> >> >> I think the best we can do is offer best practice advice that >> the order with which more than one its:provenanceRecord are >> listed in its:provenanceRecords element should reflect the >> order they were added to the document rather than the order >> in which the translation(revision) actually happened. >> >> Pablo, could you confirm that you intend the oldest one to be >> listed last? >> >> I don't think we can mandate that the order indicated the >> order in which the activity indicated in the record >> (translation or translation revision) were preformed. This >> information may not be available to the processor adding the >> annotation. For example a TMS may add this annotation after >> receiving translation revisions from two different >> translators both for multiple elements but without per >> element timing information, so it wouldn't know the order in >> which the actual revisions were performed. Alternatively >> their timings may be known for different elements, but they >> overlap in time, so there wouldn't be an obvious order for >> the records. >> >> >> I think this makes sense. It's more important to me that the >> overall semantics be clear than that the ordering work one way or >> another. Just the knowledge that, for example, provenance >> records are more like a list than a bag is an important detail. >> >>> >iii) More generally, we observe that provenance records lack a >>> date/time attribute, which makes their semantics as a form >>> of history somewhat muddy. In practice, a single tool/agent >>> may edit a single document multiple times in succession over >>> an arbitrary period of time. Should these multiple >>> "sessions" be represented by a single logical provenance >>> record? Or is it the intention of the spec that the agent >>> add a provenance record for each of these sessions in which >>> a modification is made to the document? >>> >>> As I said in the previous point any modification of the >>> content should add a new provenance record, at least is what >>> I had in mind. >>> >> The original requirements for the proveance data category >> primarily were intended to identifiy and differentiate the >> _agents_ involved in translation or revising translations >> different parts of a document. Its not clear what would be >> the best form of timing information. Should it be the period >> over which the agents conducted the translation(revison) or >> the instance in time at which they completed it. As indicated >> above, even just determining the ordering, let alone the >> absolute timing of the activity, can be complicated, and >> would require collection of this information to be pushed >> downstream to CAT tools that aren't otherwise ITS aware. This >> might present an implementation barrier if correct timing was >> mandated. >> >> >> Yes, you're right that this gets very messy when you consider >> aggregating provenance data from multiple agents that may have >> been processing in parallel. The main point I wanted to clarify >> was that the purpose of the data category was to identify agents >> as opposed to "processing events". I think this is enough for now. >> >> Thanks! >> > > >
Received on Saturday, 26 January 2013 12:51:20 UTC