Re: [all] call for consensus on Standoff Provenance (related to ISSUE-22)

Hi all, we at UL are interested in implementing this.
However, I agree with Yves that wordcount is a big pain point [must be
addressed via ULI IMHO and is out of scope of this group].
So not mentioning wordcount is a good suggestion..
Cheers
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 Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi Dave, all,
>
> reading
>
> "The provenance records must be recorded and accessed in a manner
> conformant to the specifications produced by the W3C Provenance Working
> Group"
>
> I assume that you mean: the provenance record MUST be processed following
> the PROV specifications, right?
>
> This is then a normative feature of the working group. Do we have two
> partners that will provide this processing and test cases? I know that
> there are implementation commitments, I just want to be sure that people
> are aware of what's needed.
>
> Editorial: then you refer to "provenance entity record", it would be
> helpful to have a reference to the PROV spec in which this is defined. I
> guess this might be close to
> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-aq/#dfn-provenance-uri
> which you refer to as "provenance URI", but it seems the term "entity
> record" does not appear in http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-aq/
>
> With regards to the length of the text, it might make sense to shorten
> this indeed, since there is no example for MT, post- or pre-processing
> etc., and have the material in the "best practices" doc.
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>
>
> 2012/7/26 Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
>
>> Hi all,
>> Given the implementation commitment to provenance and the previous
>> posting on this subject, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**
>> Public/public-multilingualweb-**lt/2012Jun/0161.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Jun/0161.html>please find attached the proposed specification for the Standoff Provenance
>> data category, which complements the Translation Provenance Agent
>>
>> i already acknowledge the likely comment that this needs a pointer
>> option, that's no problem if needed. But I wanted to get this out as it may
>> help address many of the comments already being raised around Translation
>> Provenance Agent call.
>>
>> many thanks,
>> Dave
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Felix Sasaki
> DFKI / W3C Fellow
>
>