Re: [ISSUE-22] Provenance and Agents

Hi Dave, Yves, all,

Dave, Yves and I had a discussion at the FEISGILLT event about provenance,
and I updated the section at
http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#translation-agent-provenance
with the idea that this data category should cover all three types of
provenance: translation, revision, RDF-based standoff. The mechanism is
copied from quality issue.

Comments welcome,

Felix

2012/10/15 Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>

> Hi Felix, Dave, all,****
>
> ** **
>
> Felix: I think there is a difference in the way you use transProvRef and
> the way locQualityIssuesRef is currently defined. You use a list of URIs
> for transProvRef while locQualityIssuesRef defines a single URI that points
> to a set of issues.****
>
> ** **
>
> To have both data categories be similar, you would have to have
> transProvref to point to a translationProvenanceRecords with one or more
> records. So in your example, two translationProvenanceRecords elements (one
> for each of the transProvRef).****
>
> ** **
>
> But I agree that a similar stand-off structure could be used for both.****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers,****
>
> -yves****
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 14, 2012 11:22 AM
> *To:* Dave Lewis
> *Cc:* public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: [ISSUE-22] Provenance and Agents****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi Dave, all,****
>
> ** **
>
> I added the translation provenance agent to****
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#translation-agent-provenance
> ****
>
> with a big warning that this is in an early stage. I changed a few things
> from your draft:****
>
> ** **
>
> - XPath expressions in pointer attributes in the example:  these were
> quite general; e.g. //dc:creator selects all "dc:creator" elements in the
> document. Esp. given the discussion we just have here ****
>
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Oct/0179.html
> ****
>
> this seems to be too general****
>
> ** **
>
> - XPath expression in the selector, e.g.
> "selector="/html/body/legalnotice"" > "selector="/text/body/legalnotice""*
> ***
>
> I changed "/html/body/par" to "/text/body/par[1]", so that here only the
> first "par" element is selected. I realized here again that we haven't
> resolved the "tool many global rules" issue. Dave, can you take up this
> thread****
>
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Oct/0093.html
> ****
>
> Because depending on the outcome both provenance and many other data
> categories might change a lot****
>
> ** **
>
> - I removed local XPath expressions, e.g. transToolPointer or
> transToolRefPointer attributes. We don't have local XPath - that has been
> discussed several times. If needed I can dig up the threads again, but it
> would save a lot of time if we could just agree on this. ****
>
> ** **
>
> - I changed the local example. What you tried in the local example was a
> combination of global and local provenance information. But that doesn't
> work: we said now several times that overriding is always complete. So you
> cannot "through a local selection overriding part of the global rule.". You
> will override the complete rule. It doesn't matter whether the local
> attributes are in HTML5 or in XML, that doesn't change overriding.****
>
> ** **
>
> In general I'm quite frustrated about the data category. The issue is not
> the pieces of information itself; what you specify (person, organization,
> tools) makes a lot of sense. The issue is that obviously the specification
> is not implementation driven, as can be seen by the non tested XPath
> expressions and the overriding that wouldn't work, even with a conformance
> only processor.****
>
> ** **
>
> The other frustration comes from the speed and continuation of progress:
> to wrap this up we need a continuous discussion. So my main question is:
> will you and Phil have time to engage in this by the end of November, that
> is within the last call period? Or: can we engage somebody else interested
> in implementing this?****
>
> ** **
>
> Now, about the data category in general ...****
>
> ** **
>
> I think what you are trying to achieve is:****
>
> conveying several pieces of provenance information for agents:****
>
> initial revision = translation agent provenance;****
>
> subsequent revision = translation revision agent provenance;****
>
> complex revision information: standoff provenance.****
>
> ** **
>
> We may have a similar picture like with quality issue: the complexity of
> this information might be better dealt with a standoff approach. I am not
> talking about the standoff approach in your example, Dave, but something
> like this:****
>
> ** **
>
> [****
>
> <text xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:its="
> http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its"
>     its:version="2.0">
>     <head>
>         <dc:creator>John Doe</dc:creator>
>         <title>Translation Revision Provenance Agent: Global Test in XML
> </title>
>         <its:translationProvenanceRecords>
>             <its:translationProvenanceRecord xml:id="tp1"
>                 transToolRef="http://www.onlinemtex.com/2012/7/25/wsdl/"transOrg
> ="acme-CAT-v2.3"/>
>             <its:translationProvenanceRecord xml:id="tp2" transPerson="John
> Doe"
>                 transOrgRef="http://www.legaltrans-ex.com/"/>
>             <its:translationProvenanceRecord xml:id="tp3" transPerson="Carl
> Meyer"
>                 transOrgRef="http://www.mytranslations.example.com/"/>
>             <its:translationProvenanceRecord xml:id="tp4" provRef="
> http://www.examplemtservice.com/prov/e76547"/>
>         </its:translationProvenanceRecords>
>     </head>
>     <body>
>         <par its:transProvRef="#tp1"> This paragraph was translated from
> the machine.</par>
>         <legalnotice postediting-by="http://www.vistatec.com/"its:transProvRef
> ="#tp2 #tp3 #tp4">This text was
>             translated directly by a person.</legalnotice>
>     </body>
> </text>****
>
> ]****
>
> ** **
>
> The interaction between "its:translationProvenanceRecords" and the
> local its:transProvRef attribute is identical to "its:locQualityIssues" and
> "its:locQualityIssuesRef" attribute.****
>
> ** **
>
> In its:translationProvenanceRecords you have a list of
> "its:translationProvenanceRecord" elements. Each element has an "xml:id"
> attribute. We could say that the order of "its:translationProvenanceRecord"
> specifies whether this is translation agent provenance or revision agent
> provenance information. Or we could say that this is specified by the order
> of the values in "its:transProfRev". ”Your" standoff data category could be
> accommodated by <its:translationProvenanceRecord xml:id="tp4" provRef="
> http://www.examplemtservice.com/prov/e76547"/>.****
>
> ** **
>
> You seem to have the use case of attaching several pieces of provenance
> information to the same node. With the ITS overriding that is not possible.
> But with the above approach tools can still do that, locally:****
>
> - first tool creates****
>
> <legalnotice postediting-by="http://www.vistatec.com/" its:transProvRef=
> "#tp2">This text was
>             translated directly by a person.</legalnotice>****
>
> - second tool creates****
>
> <legalnotice postediting-by="http://www.vistatec.com/" its:transProvRef="#tp2
> #tp3">This text was
>             translated directly by a person.</legalnotice>****
>
> - third tool creates****
>
> <legalnotice postediting-by="http://www.vistatec.com/" its:transProvRef="#tp2
> #tp3 #tp4">This text was
>             translated directly by a person.</legalnotice>****
>
> ** **
>
> This all works without global "adding" rules (but keeping the pointer
> attributes in global rules). We just need guidance for the tool developers
> how to attach such complex pieces of information.****
>
> ** **
>
> Also, for the simple local case we could still have ****
>
> <legalnotice postediting-by="http://www.vistatec.com/" its:transPerson="John
> Doe"
>                 its:transOrgRef="http://www.legaltrans-ex.com/" its:
> provRef="http://www.examplemtservice.com/prov/e76547">This text
> was translated directly by a person.</legalnotice>****
>
> ** **
>
> But would say that you either have local markup or the external record,
> not both.****
>
> ** **
>
> So in summary, above proposal would mean****
>
> - have only one provenance data category****
>
> - realize the need of specifying initial translation provenance, revision
> and standoff provenance at the same time like this: having lq issue like
> standoff elements****
>
> - realize the need of providing several pieces of information via several
> references to provenance records, e.g. its:transProvRef="#tp2 #tp3"****
>
> - have global rules only for pointing, see the other thread.****
>
> ** **
>
> Best,****
>
> ** **
>
> Felix****
>
> ** **
>
> 2012/10/12 Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>****
>
> Hi All,
> Please find attached updates to the provenance related data categories
> ready to be included in the draft. Many thanks to Phil for reviewing these
> in detail.
>
> There are three separate data categories:
> - Translation Agent Provenance: which record machines, people and
> organsiations responsible for translating the selected text
>
> - Translation Agent Provenance: which records machines, people and
> organsiations responsible for revising the translation the selected text
> (e.g. from posteding or linguistic review)
>
> - Standoff Provenance: which provides a link to standoff provenance record
> using the W3C PROV standard.
>
> Comments welcome.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>
> - ****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> Felix Sasaki****
>
> DFKI / W3C Fellow****
>
> ** **
>



-- 
Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow