[ACTION-78]Consider consolidation of localeSpecificContent and droprule

Hi Pedro, Moritz, guys,
I've  raised a specific action for the different consolidation items, 
please continue discussion by repsonding under this subject line, so we 
can keep the archive relatively structured. Comments below....

> DaveL, Moritz: Could localeSpecificContent be consolidated with 
> dropRule, e.g. specifying the content should be drops for specific 
> locales, for every translation, or for every translation except 
> specified locales?
>
> >>Pedro>> Agreed, as long as in "localeSpecificContent" there is a way 
> for saying: not to be translated in any locale. Perhaps for this it 
> also enough Translate: no.
>
The objective of localeSpecificContent/dropRule is that it idenitfies 
conent that shouldn't be submitted to the localsiation process at all 
(for all or specific locales). This means, i presume, it should not even 
be included as context. This implies that it should be stripped from 
skeleton file when transformed into XLIFF.

In contrast, translate:no retains the element concerned as part of the 
content submitted for localisation, as it may be a meaningful part of 
the content, e.g. a proper name, or useful context, but it is just mark 
not to be translated. Is that everyone's understanding.

Could we then state the requirement as:

"Indicate source content elements as only being suitable for 
localisation to specific locales only, for not being suitable for 
localisation to specific locales or for not being suitable for 
localisation at all"

We might then call it "locale-filter"

A suggested data model might be

"locale-filter-type"
values: "positive", "negative" or "none"

where value "none" indicates that  the element should not be passed for 
localization under any circumstances

"positive" means the element MAY ONLY be localised for the locales 
specified in locale-filter-list

"negative" mean the element MUST NOT be localised for the locales 
specified in the locale-filter-list

"locale-filter-list"
value: list of BCP-47 values

How does that sound?

cheers,
Dave

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *De:*David Lewis [mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie]
> *Enviado el:* jueves, 26 de abril de 2012 14:23
> *Para:* public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
> *Asunto:* [all] suggestions for consolidating requirements
>
> Dear all,
> I have four further suggestions for consolidating requirements that 
> I'd like to discuss briefly on the call with the relevant people:
>
> Moritz, Des: I think there is potential to combine 'confidentiality' 
> with 'contentLicensingTerms', with confidentiality being a specific 
> value of contentLicensingTerms, whcih could perhaps be relaised using 
> Creative Commons license classes
>
> DaveL, Moritz: Could localeSpecificContent be consolidated with 
> dropRule, e.g. specifying the content should be drops for specific 
> locales, for every translation, or for every translation except 
> specified locales?
>
> DaveL, Pedro: I think we could consolidate author, revisionAgent and 
> translationAgent, with a generic 'agent' bound to a process spec, 
> aligning with work in the W3C Provenance Working Group, 
> www.w3.org/2011/prov/ <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/>
>
> Pedro, Dabiel, Declan, Tadej: I think there may be opportunity to 
> consolidate mtDisambiguationData, namedEntity, terminology and 
> textAnalyticsAnnotation. For instance is MT disambiguation really 
> terminology support for MT?
>
> comments weclome,
> Dave
>