- From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 05:56:35 -0700
- To: <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <assp.0667af48f8.assp.066764fd05.004401cdc3f9$cfc43db0$6f4cb910$@com>
Hi Tadej, So it seems we just have to: - change the enityTypeRef to disambigClassRef in the text of example 53 - remove the reference to entityTypeSourceRef in the text of example 53 - and add disambigGranularity in the global rule (sorry I missed that correction in the previous email). - correct example 54 OK. Felix: I can do it later during my afternoon/evening (along with Jörg’s changes) if you don’t do it before. cheers, -yves From: Tadej Stajner [mailto:tadej.stajner@ijs.si] Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 5:22 AM To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org Subject: Re: [all] Disambiguation Hi Yves, * entityTypeSourceRef is dropped, since it basically doesn't have a use case. * entityTypeRef became disambigClassRef (generalized to include not just 'entities') * I mentioned the global granularity in one of the previous mails - the GLOBAL part was missing the optional granularity param. I think it wasn't intentional, probably got lost in the editing at some point. Something like this should still be valid: <its:disambiguationRule selector="//*[@about]" disambigIdentRefPointer="@about" disambigGranularity="entity"/> -- Tadej On 11/16/2012 12:23 AM, Yves Savourel wrote: Tadej, one more think on Disambiguation: How do you set the granularity in a global rule? I know we don't need a disambigGranularityPointer because the values are a finite list, so you can use the selector to define the mapping. But you still need a global disambigGranularity to set the granularity for that mapping, no? -yves -----Original Message----- From: Yves Savourel [mailto:ysavourel@enlaso.com] Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 4:17 PM To: 'Multilingual Web LT Public List' Subject: [all] Disambiguation Hi Tadej, all, In the text of example 53 we have references to "entityTypeSourceRef and enttiyTypeRef". I think those are the old names. But I can't recall what their new correspondence is. The text also list 4 information, but the rule in 54 has two pointers. cheers, -yves
Received on Friday, 16 November 2012 12:57:07 UTC