Re: [All] domain data category section proposal, please review

Felix,
thanks for the explanation, that's clear now. But yes, perhaps we could 
make the override semantics a bit clearer using your wording, as the 
question of partial application of datacategory attribute to element may 
be raised with any such data categoy with this sort of 'set valued' 
attribute.

So after: "In case of conflicts between global selections via multiple 
rule <http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20120626/#selection-global> 
elements, the last selector has higher precedence."
include:
"Override semantics are always complete, that is all information that is 
specified in one rule element is overridden by the next one."

cheers,
Dave

On 11/07/2012 08:06, Felix Sasaki wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> the override semantic are always complete, that is: all information 
> that is specified in one "rule" element is overridden by the next one. See
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20120626/#selection-precedence
> "In case of conflicts between global selections via multiple rule 
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20120626/#selection-global> elements, 
> the last selector has higher precedence."
>
> So there are no "rule type" specific semantics of overriding: the 
> metadata of the previous rule is just not taken into account.
>
> Do we think we should make this clearer at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20120626/#selection-precedence
> ?
>
> 2012/7/11 Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie <mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>>
>
>     Yves,
>     This sound sensible, but you get me thinking, what are the
>     override semantics between a domain rule that just specifies a
>     source meta-data selector and one that subsequently specifies a
>     mapping, should we specify that the consumer tool takes the RHS
>     value of the mapping rather than the LHS?
>
>     Also, this got me thinking. The selector in the example would
>     select all meta data, regardless of whether its useful for
>     translation domains or not. Can we specify that more specific
>     meta-data selectors should NOT be used as a domain indicator?
>
>
> We can say "select only the first 'meta' element", or select only the 
> ones which have not  a specific "scheme" attribute, e.g.
>
> <its:domainRule selector="/html/body" 
> domainPointer="/html/head/meta[@name='DC.subject' and 
> not(starts-with(@scheme,'DC'))]/@content"/>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>
>
>     Regards,
>     Dave
>
>
>     On 10/07/2012 13:44, Yves Savourel wrote:
>
>         Hi Felix, Dave, all,
>
>         One more question on Domain:
>
>         There is no "Default, inheritance, overriding of data
>         category" for Domain:
>         http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#datacategories-defaults-etc
>
>         I assume:
>
>         - Default is none
>         - Inheritance is " Textual content of element, including
>         attributes and child elements"
>         - Overriding is Yes
>
>         Just like locNote. Is that correct?
>
>         Thanks,
>         -yves
>
>
>
>
>         -----Original Message-----
>         From: Yves Savourel [mailto:ysavourel@enlaso.com
>         <mailto:ysavourel@enlaso.com>]
>         Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 10:48 AM
>         To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
>         <mailto:public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
>         Subject: Re: [All] domain data category section proposal,
>         please review
>
>         Hi Felix, Dave, all,
>
>         I'm working on implementing the Domain data category.
>         And I have a clarification question:
>
>         My understanding is that for the domainMapping attribute, the
>         left part of the pair is unique within the mapping. And
>         several left parts can map to a single right part. Is that
>         correct?
>
>         That is, we could have:
>
>         domainMapping="automotive auto, medical medicine, 'criminal
>         law' law, 'property law' law"
>
>
>         Note for the editors:
>
>         By the way, the current definition in the draft is not very
>         specific on which part is in the document and which part is
>         not. I know it's rather logical, but it may be more clear to
>         say so explicitly, rather than just in the example?
>
>         Also in "The values may contain spaces; in that case they MUST
>         be delimited by quotation marks." Maybe stating explicitely
>         which characters can be used as quotation marks would be more
>         clear? The example uses single quotes, but I assume double
>         ones are also OK (any other?).
>
>         thanks,
>         -yves
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Felix Sasaki
> DFKI / W3C Fellow
>