- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:37:46 +0100
- To: "public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <50B8705A.8070601@w3.org>
And now to the list ... Am 30.11.12 09:36, schrieb Felix Sasaki: > Hi Fredrik, > > Am 28.11.12 18:58, schrieb Fredrik Liden: >> >> 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 >> > > > yes, it is. id(@def) is a function call, and that's allowed as part of > a relative location path. See > http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath/#NT-RelativeLocationPath > http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath/#NT-Step > http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath/#NT-Predicate > http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath/#NT-Expr > http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath/#NT-FunctionCall > > Best, > > Felix > >> *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> >> ************************************************************ >> >
Received on Friday, 30 November 2012 08:38:23 UTC