Re: Test Suit Specs - Pointers and RefPointers

2012/11/8 Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>

> Hi Leroy, Felix, all,****
>
> ** **
>
> I do understand the preference to have pointers. It’s nice and it, in some
> cases, could help debugging.****
>
> ** **
>
> The issue is that to output pointer in the test result you have to carry
> that information in the decorated tree. But from a pure implementation
> efficiency viewpoint there is no reason to do that, and several reason to
> avoid it.****
>
> ** **
>
> In other words, if we output pointers, we force the implementers to make
> their implementation un-necessarily less optimal just because it’s kind of
> nice to see the pointers in a test output that real users will never see.*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> IMO the test outputs are a way to validate the results produced by an
> implementation, not to debug it.****
>
> As Felix noted, we didn’t have this in the 1.0 tests. I think we need a
> strong reason to add it for 2.0.
>


FELIX: My main argument would be growing complexity in 2.0 about how to
create ITS information. In ITS 1.0 we had a maximum of four attributes at a
global rule:
 attribute locNotePointer { string }?, attribute locNoteType { "alert" |
"description" }, attribute locNoteRef { xsd:anyURI }?, attribute
locNoteRefPointer
In ITS 2.0 it is *28* attributes, see
http://www.w3.org/TR/its20/#translation-agent-provenance-global
Some of these are mutally exclusive; but it seems easy to get lost when you
ask yourself: where does a wrong value come from, the input data or the ITS
metadata?

Best,

Felix

****
>
> ** **
>
> Does showing the pointer value on a given node prove that the result was
> obtain using that pointer?****
>
> No. A lot of process happens between the time you would add the pointer
> value to the decorated tree and the time you would attach the actual result
> information to that same node.****
>
> ** **
>
> Can we always validate the information produced by a pointer rule without
> showing the pointer?****
>
> The answer is yes, thus no need to output pointers values.****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers,****
>
> -yves****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Leroy Finn [mailto:finnle@tcd.ie]
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 08, 2012 5:51 AM
> *To:* Felix Sasaki
> *Cc:* Yves Savourel; Pablo Nieto Caride; Fredrik Liden; Multilingual Web
> LT-TESTS Public
> *Subject:* Re: Test Suit Specs - Pointers and RefPointers****
>
> ** **
>
> Everyone,****
>
> ** **
>
> So the consensus I am seeing here is doing the following:****
>
> ** **
>
> *Current:*
> */html/body[1]/p[2]/span[1]            locNoteType="description"
> locNoteRefPointer=""        title="Comments.html#DivByZero"*****
>
>  ****
>
>
> *New version:*
> */html/body[1]/p[2]/span[1]
> locNoteRefPointer="Comments.html#DivByZero"
> locNoteType="description"    *****
>
> ** **
>
> This means removing title or any other random name and have more
> consistent output using locNoteRefPointer/locNoteRef/etc.... ****
>
> ** **
>
> So this brings me to locNoteRefPointer/locNoteRef:****
>
> ** **
>
>    - Yves and Fredrik are for removing the word pointer.****
>    - Felix is for having pointer. ****
>
> I don't mind either though i would be *in favor of pointer*. Its an easy
> thing to change but I will hold back producing output till tomorrow. If
> no consensus is reached by tomorrow then I will go ahead for pointer and
> produce the output. I will have to  have to reproduce output again probably
> anyway so if people change there mind and more people are for dropping
> pointer then i will drop pointer. So if people have views on this then let
> me know one way or the other.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> Leroy****
>
> ** **
>
> On 7 November 2012 21:01, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:****
>
> ** **
>
> 2012/11/7 Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>****
>
> Hi all,****
>
>
> >> That is a good point Felix as we want to see the output as it is
> >> as after all these conformance tests. I haven't made any changes
> >> as of yet so would this mean that the output stays the same apart
> >> from the changes we discussed in Lyon???
> >
> > Yes, that would be my suggestion. Of course we can continue discussing
> > this here, but at the moment I don't see a consensus for changing this,
> > with at least me opposing.****
>
> I've read all the emails in this thread and I still have a hard time to
> understand the changes/no-changes that people are talking about. Sorry if
> I'm speaking on something that has been resolved already:
>
> For me:
>
> For references: Either locNote="REF:text" or locNoteRef="text" is fine.
> The bottom line is that the fact that the data is a reference vs the actual
> text is important and should be provided. It is part of the ITS information.
>
> For the pointers: I'm not sure why we need to output that information. If
> the text of the information is right it means it was properly resolved. My
> concern is that 'how' the information was obtain as far as if it was from a
> native ITS attribute or some markup pointed to by a rule is not really
> relevant for processor used in production. Carrying that information in the
> decorated tree is a burden to the application.****
>
>
>
> I understand, but I think this burden is important. We have seen in the
> "complete overriding" discussion that carrying such information can be
> quite helpful to understand how the technology works - even 5 years after
> it has been specified.
>  ****
>
>
> So I would be for something like this:****
>
>
> /html/body[1]/section[2]/span[1]           locNote="A division by 0 was
> going to be computed."  locNoteType="description"****
>
> Rather than this:****
>
>
> /html/body[1]/section[2]/span[1]           locNoteType="description"
>   locNotePointer="A division by 0 was going to be computed."****
>
>
> My preference would be the latter. But I realize that in the ITS 1.0 test
> suite we did the former, see
>
> http://www.w3.org/International/its/tests/inputdata/EX-locNotePointer-attribute-1.xml
>
> http://www.w3.org/International/its/tests/expected/EX-locNotePointer-attribute-1-result.xml
> In the result the pointer is normalized to
> <o:locNoteText>A division by 0 was going to be computed.</o:locNoteText>
>
> So I can't back my position with any data in that sense.
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers,
> -yves
>
> ****
>
>
>
>
> --
> Felix Sasaki****
>
> DFKI / W3C Fellow****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>



-- 
Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow