- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 13:40:43 +0200
- To: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
- Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAL58czrmwogkHE40JjhjUT9Y+n9aMnGm2kFQrNUynX0rc0XuKA@mail.gmail.com>
2012/7/26 Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie> > Hi Yves, > thanks for this - comments below: > > > Hi Dave, all >> >> Thanks for the updated text Dave. >> >> A few notes: >> >> 1) Spelling >> >> The text seems to be in UK English (e.g. organisation vs organization). >> I think we use US spelling in the ITS specification. >> > good point, i'll fix this. > > >> 2) IRI vs URI >> >> In ITS 1.0 we used URI. I can't recall exactly why (maybe IRI was not >> final yet then?). But we need to be consistent and use one or the other for >> 2.0. >> > Yes, this occurred to me and i was also going to raise it in general. I > think to be consistent with best practice of the internationalization > activity, not to mention the inherently global market for conforming > products we should go for IRI when not otherwise constrained. > > > >> 3) Example text (very minor) >> >> To avoid the wrath of the purists, in the example for local markup >> its-trans-agent="C3PO" should be its-trans-agent="C-3PO", if it refers to >> what I think. >> >> A shocking oversight on my part, the force is indeed strong in you :-) > > On a serious note though, are we restricted in using copyrighted or > trademarked terms in our examples? Felix? > Good point - in this case, it's OK - there is no general guideline AFAIK. Felix > > 4) Global rules >> >> ... >> >> >> I think the proposed global rules don't cover the first goal. We can >> associate a prov(Revision)Agent and a prov(Revision)AgentRef defined in a >> global rule with selected nodes, but we cannot tell that a given element or >> attribute of the host vocabulary has existing constructs that implement >> such information. >> >> In other words: the values of prov(Revision)Agent and >> prov(Revision)AgentRef can be held only by ITS attributes. >> >> For example how would we indicate that 'agent' and 'revAgent' are the >> equivalent of its:provAgent and its:provRevisionAgent in this document: >> >> <text> >> <title>Translation Provenance Agent: Local Test in XML</title> >> <body> >> <par agent='C-P3O' revAgent='Luke'>This paragraph was machine >> translated and then postedited.</par> >> <legalnotice agent='Luke'>This legal text was subject to translation >> by manual means.</legalnotice> >> </body> >> </text> >> >> (DocBook or DITA may have better examples). >> >> I think we'll need four extra attributes in the global rules: >> provAgentPointer, provAgentRefPointer, provRevionAgentPointer, and >> provRevisionAgentRefPointer. See the Localization Note data category for an >> example of similar pattern (http://www.w3.org/** >> International/multilingualweb/**lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#** >> locNote-implementation<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#locNote-implementation> >> ) >> >> > I guess i was just trying to keep things simple, but this is a good point > - keeping the Ref&Pointer pattern make sense and keeps this data category > consistent with the others. I will address this. > > This might make definition a bit lengthy, so does it make sense to split > translation agent and revision agent into two different data category > definitions? Its sort of an editorial decision. > > cheers, > Dave > > > Cheers, >> -yves >> >> >> >> > > -- Felix Sasaki DFKI / W3C Fellow
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2012 11:41:13 UTC