W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > July 2012

Re: [all] call for concensus on Translation Provenance Agent (related to ISSUE-22)

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 13:40:43 +0200
Message-ID: <CAL58czrmwogkHE40JjhjUT9Y+n9aMnGm2kFQrNUynX0rc0XuKA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:31:47 UTC