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

Hi Dave,

2012/7/19 Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>

>  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."
>


Very good idea. I just would add above sentence to the note

"The precedence order fulfills the same purpose as the built-in template
rules of [XSLT 1.0]."

So that we avoid changing normative text. I just talked to Arle, he is just
doing some editing and will have a look.

Best,

Felix


>
> 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>
>
>> 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"</html/head/meta%5B@name='DC.subject'andnot(starts-with(@scheme,'DC'))%5D/@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]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 10:48 AM
>>> To: 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
>
>
>


-- 
Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow