- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2012 00:18:19 +0100
- To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
- Message-ID: <50BA903B.30207@w3.org>
Hi Phil, all,
Am 01.12.12 23:40, schrieb Phil Ritchie:
> Yves, All
>
> In trying to clarify the situation for myself:
>
> There are two sets of data:
>
> 1. The content (of primary importance) and the agents that have
> created and interacted with the content;
> 2. 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.
Of course you can max data categories. See this example file from the
ITS 1.0 test suite:
http://www.w3.org/International/its/tests/inputdata/Translate1.xml
it mixes "Translate" and "within Text". Here it is done with global
rules, but it also can be done with local markup.
The main point is that ITS 1.0 / 2.0 leaves this mixing to the
application. The benefit is that the application becomes quite flexible
in what it wants to mix, and you can envisage many applications, from
content creation to localization to language technology ... . The
drawback is that you have to decide yourself what mixing is useful for
your scenario.
>
> 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>
Of course, that's possible. See here, from the above example from the
test suite:
[
<its:rules version="1.0"><its:translateRule selector="//img/@alt"
translate="yes"/><its:translateRule selector="//*/@title"
translate="yes"/><its:translateRule selector="//verbatim"
translate="no"/><its:translateRule selector="//verbatim/@*"
translate="no"/><its:translateRule selector="//verbatim//*/@*"
translate="no"/><its:withinTextRule selector="//img|//verbatim"
withinText="yes"/></its:rules>
]
And the "Base RELAX NG schema for ITS" at
http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#its-schemas
which allows you to mix the rules, using this definition
[
*<define* name="its-rules"*>*
*<element* name="rules"*>*
*<a:documentation>*Container for global rules.*</a:documentation>*
*<ref* name="its-rules.content"*/>*
*<ref* name="its-rules.attributes"*/>*
*</element>*
*</define>*
*<define* name="its-rules.content"*>*
*<zeroOrMore>*
*<ref* name="its-param"*/>*
*</zeroOrMore>*
*<zeroOrMore>*
*<choice>*
*<ref* name="its-translateRule"*/>*
*<ref* name="its-locNoteRule"*/>*
*<ref* name="its-termRule"*/>*
*<ref* name="its-dirRule"*/>*
*<ref* name="its-rubyRule"*/>*
*<ref* name="its-langRule"*/>*
*<ref* name="its-withinTextRule"*/>*
*<ref* name="its-domainRule"*/>*
*<ref* name="its-disambiguationRule"*/>*
*<ref* name="its-localeFilterRule"*/>*
*<ref* name="its-provRule"*/>*
*<ref* name="its-locQualityIssueRule"*/>*
*<ref* name="its-mtConfidenceRule"*/>*
*<ref* name="its-externalResourceRefRule"*/>*
*<ref* name="its-targetPointerRule"*/>*
*<ref* name="its-idValueRule"*/>*
*<ref* name="its-preserveSpaceRule"*/>*
*<ref* name="its-allowedCharactersRule"*/>*
*<ref* name="its-storageSizeRule"*/>*
*</choice>*
*</zeroOrMore>*
*</define>*
]
>
> In Local markup can attributes from different data categories be mixed?
Sure. But what you do with it depends on your application.
>
> <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.
You won't get it. Put it into your own namespace and ask for it when
people start working on ITS 2.1 or ITS 3.0. Co-chair-hat on: according
to our charter
http://www.w3.org/2011/12/mlw-lt-charter
we should have been in the feature complete "last call" stage in
November. We are delayed. Hence, new feature requests will not be taken
into account. We can make clarifications, though, like the name of the
ITS annotation attribute, and I'll make a proposal later on Sunday.
Note also that our publication schedule is announced to all other
working groups
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2012OctDec/0070.html
and the publication date is set to 6 December - others in the group
already asked about the address of the draft
http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/
See last wg call meeting minutes. These are additional reasons not to
discuss new feature requests.
- Felix
>
> 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
> ************************************************************
>
Received on Saturday, 1 December 2012 23:18:49 UTC