Terminology Example 38

In the draft, Example 38: Usage of the termInfoPointer attribute (terminology1xml.xml), is id(@def) is a valid value for Pointer values?
<text>
  <its:rules version="2.0" xmlns:its="http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its">
    <its:termRule selector="//term" term="yes" termInfoPointer="id(@def)"/>
  </its:rules>
  <p>We may define <term def="TDPV">discoursal point of view</term> as
    <gloss xml:id="TDPV">the relationship, expressed through discourse structure, between the
    implied author or some other addresser, and the fiction.</gloss></p>
</text>

Fredrik


From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 2:41 AM
To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org<mailto:public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>; philr@vistatec.ie<mailto:philr@vistatec.ie>
Subject: Re: [ACTION-320]: Localization Quality Précis Retain in Spec.

Am 28.11.12 10:54, schrieb Phil Ritchie:
All

Arle and I spoke this morning.

VistaTEC definitely sees a requirement for Localisation Quality Précis - that is, a data category to contain document level, quality related metadata. The locQualityIssue metadata has much more meaning when it is referenced back to an overall score and pass/fail threshold and optionally point to other non-normative information (contained in the rating).

There is a current proposal for a change of name to "Localization Quality Rating" at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Nov/0151.html. I have no objection to this.

Implementations: VistaTEC would be an implementer of this category. Arle thinks that he could provide a second implementation but cannot commit to having it ready until March 2013.

Later today/tomorrow I will revise section 8.18 to reflect the naming change and amend the description and post back to the group.

The only questions I have having re-read the Loc. Quality sections are about capturing the "agent" and "tool". Given that the Translation Agent Provenance data category can be used freely in combination with Localization Quality Issue and Localization Quality Rating then I see no problem with the former and if we have a data category independent mechanism for "tool" then I'm happy there also. Given these two assumptions I see no need to change any of the Localization Quality Rating attributes.

So do you need all the pointer and non pointer attributes at
http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#lqprecis-implementation
all of the counter parts of these attributes have been dropped. If wen drop them for lqprecis too that would mean there will be no global markup for lqprecis, just local. For lq issues there is now just global rule attributes to point to standoff list of issues. but lq precis doesn't have a counterpart here.

In summary, what you did so far is not enough to keep lqprecis or whatever we will call it here. Please take the time to think carefully what mechanisms you really need, and do it soon.

Best,

Felix

Jirka, is this enough information that you can proceed with the schema's?

Phil.

************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the sender immediately by e-mail.

www.vistatec.com<http://www.vistatec.com>
************************************************************