Re: Test Suit Specs - Pointers and RefPointers

2012/11/8 Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>

>
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow