RE: [All] its-tool-ref vs. its-tools-ref

Yves, All

In trying to clarify the situation for myself:

There are two sets of data:

The content (of primary importance) and the agents that have created and 
interacted with the content;
The container of the content - metadata - and the agents that have created 
and modified it.

To me anything that pertains to A is the realm of Provenance; that which 
pertains to B is the realm of ITS Tools Annotation.

With this view, MT Confidence should use Provence (tool, toolRef, revTool, 
revToolRef). This is how locQuality* would have to record any tools as it 
does not have its own tool related attributes.

Now, this makes me realise that we then have data categories which are 
related to each other. This would seem to require people to use Global 
markup in order to capture this relation:

<its:rules>
        <its:mtConfidenceRule....
        <its:provRule....
        <its:locQualityIssueRule
</its:rules>

In Local markup can attributes from different data categories be mixed?

<span its-mt-confidence="0.785" its-loc-quality-issue-comment="Even as 
consumable as raw mt output this is bad!">This text was produced by 
machine translation engine, is for gisted output but has been rated by an 
end user.</span> 

Worse still at this point in the proceedings it makes me realise that I 
need a local attribute for locQuality* called 
"locQualityIssueConformance". In fairness this is in the original 
Requirements Specification (
https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements#Quality_Assurance_.28QA.29
) but fell through the cracks.

Phil.





From:   Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
To:     <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>, 
Date:   01/12/2012 20:43
Subject:        RE: [All] its-tool-ref vs. its-tools-ref



Hi Felix, Jörg, Phil, Dave, all,

=== a) if we had toolsRef wouldn't be logical to have annotatorsRef 
(rather than annotatorRef)?

=== b) Now I'm starting to wonder what the annotatorRef exactly is 
pointing too. Reading this sentence:

"...For example, the score of the MT Confidence data category (provided 
via the mtConfidence attribute) is meaningful only when the consumer of 
the information also knows what MT engine produced it," 

It clearly refers to the MT engine, which may or may not be the actual 
tool that does the annotation (i.e. adds the markup).

I know it sound like nitpicking, but if annotatorRef is about the tool 
that created the information for the data category, as opposed to the tool 
that introduced the actual ITS markup to hold that information (and I know 
in some cases it can be the same tool), then:

-- 'annotator' seems like a wrong choice. originatorsRef or originsRef or 
processorsRef may be closer to the function of the attribute.

-- And this brings me back to the Provenance's toolRef/revToolRef: It 
seems then that annotatorRef hold the same information as those two 
attributes. Therefore:

 1) What its:annotatorRef for provenance holds?

 and 2) Can't we remove toolRef/revToolRef to use annotatorRef with 
'provenance' and 'provenance-rev'?


I think currently annotatorRef does not define clearly which tool it 
addresses: The MT confidence example indicates the 'originator' of the 
information, but the sentence: "The attribute annotatorRef provides a way 
to associate all the annotations of a given data category within the 
element with information about the processor that generated those data 
category annotations." indicates the 'annotator' of the information. Which 
is it?


-ys




-----Original Message-----
From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org] 
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 12:29 PM
To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Subject: Re: [All] its-tool-ref vs. its-tools-ref

Jörg, Phil, Yves, all,

thanks for the feedback. I have changed this now to its:annotatorRef (HTML 
its-annotator-ref). See the diff for the spec, examples and the schemas 
attached. We can discuss this on the Monday call. If possible I'd like to 
make the final change to this before the call, so please send feedback 
before, if needed.

Thanks,

Felix

Am 01.12.12 17:22, schrieb Jörg Schütz:
> What about "its-annotator-ref" or "its:annotarRef" for the ITS 
annoation?
>
> Cheers -- Jörg
>
> On Dec 01, 2012 at 14:07 (UTC+1), Yves Savourel wrote:
>>> Any suggestions?
>>
>> agentsRef if we change toolsRef
>> or agentRef/revAgentRef if we change toolRef/revToolRef
>>
>> -ys
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
>> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 4:33 AM
>> To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
>> Subject: [All] its-tool-ref vs. its-tools-ref
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> while working on
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20
>> .html#list-of-elements-and-attributes
>>
>>
>> I realized that the provenance "reference to tools" attribute is very 
>> similar to the its tool annotation attribute:
>>
>> - in provenance: its-tool-ref or its:toolRef
>> - for ITS annotation: its-tools-ref or its:toolsRef
>>
>> I think we should rename its-tools-ref (that is the annotation
>> mechanism) including the XML counterpart its:toolsRef) to avoid 
>> confusion. Since that is a normative change we should get this done 
>> on Monday before the call. Any suggestions?
>>
>> - Felix
>>
>>
>>
>





************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the sender immediately by e-mail.

www.vistatec.com
************************************************************