- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 02:18:38 +0100
- To: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
- Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAL58czoZ+n9j75QyKrMqiR5_iNfi+aM+VROUj6Y2LFdgotSBHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Dave, taking the list into the loop to get some thoughts, I started editing provenance, but then stopped. Your changes make sense, but they create a disalignment with other data categories, e.g. localization quality issues has not the mutually exclusive version of pointer attributes that you created. I also have problems to understand nesting like these: [ • Exactly one of the following: o At least one of the following: • Exactly the following: ] How about deleting all pointer attributes, except the pointer "provRecsRefPointer" for standoff? This would make things easier and follow the patterns Yves proposed for localization quality issue at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Nov/0103.html I'm not trying to re-open the general "too many global rules" issue - this is specific to provenance and trying to avoid things like the "Exactly one ... " nesting above. Best, Felix 2012/11/13 Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie> > On 12/11/2012 22:47, Felix Sasaki wrote: > >> And another one - can you help me with this: >> >> https://www.w3.org/**International/multilingualweb/**lt/track/actions/283<https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/283> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Felix >> > Hi Felix, > > thanks for reminding me, I'd not addressed that in the update to the > provenance text i sent last night. i've added some text (hihglighted in > green) in the attached update covering; > - the warning of what the attributes in standoff relate to - copied from > qualityissues > - text on the use of script for containing provRecs standoff internally in > HTML > > I also fixed the text about the pointers attributes not being used in HTML. > > finally, after a bit of thought, i removed the note about the order of the > provRec element within provRecs being significant in relation to temporal > ordering. This information won't always be available but we don't have a > mechanism for indicating when it is, so better i think just to drop it - it > was just something i added, not really driven by a partner use case and the > PROV records can provide this sort of detail if needed. > > cheers, > Dave > > > > -- Felix Sasaki DFKI / W3C Fellow
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2012 01:19:03 UTC