- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 00:36:43 +0200
- To: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
- Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAL58czpeCSeO=yghWeB+4iKDQy2jE=BTEm+-98zr99EwLmxGCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Dave, all, 2012/10/26 Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie> > Hi Yves, > I don't see immediately why not. 'Items' is nice and neutral > > But would it not be easier to retain the item element name from the > different data categories? e.g. > > <its:items id="1"> > <its:locQualityIssue locQualityIssueType="misspelling" > locQualityIssueComment="'c'es' is unknown. Could be 'c'est'" > locQualityIssueSeverity="50"/> > <its:translationProvenanceRecord > > transToolRef="http://www.onlinemtex.com/2012/7/25/wsdl/"<http://www.onlinemtex.com/2012/7/25/wsdl/> > transOrg="acme-CAT-v2.3" > transRevToolRef="http://www.mycat.com/v1.0/download"<http://www.mycat.com/v1.0/download> > transRevOrg="acme-CAT-v2.3" > provRef= > "http://www.examplelsp.com/excontent987/productio/prov/e6354"<http://www.examplelsp.com/excontent987/productio/prov/e6354> > /> > </its:items> > Yves wrote at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Oct/0296.html "We said we should have a single root element in each script. So you would just have several scripts if you have several stand-off references." To resolve my concern http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Oct/0294.html See "Could this create a conflict". What you do above does create the conflict, in terms of - conformance (does an implementation just implementing locquality issue need to pass all information, including its:translationProvenanceRecord, or throw it away?), or in terms of - precedence ("I am implementing locquality issue globally, and translationProvenance locally - what do I do if there is in one script element both information?). So I think we need to keep separate items elements. > > Two other quick questions about standoff markup: > 1) in Localization Quality issue, where the locQualityIssue element is > defined under the GLOBAL definition there is a editor note saying > "[Ed. note: Should locQualityIssues also be defined for global rules? It > seems not to be specific to local.]" > > the answer is surely yes as > a) locQualityIssues is referred to also from the global definition > Well, we can change that, if there is no use case and implementer :) > and > b) because the need to support more than one set of the same data category > attribute for the same node applies regardless of how it is selected. > Yes, but standoff does not define new data category attributes - it just defines a mechanism to *repeat* attributes. And if that is not needed globally, why add it? > > Would the best solution is therefore to define it before both GLOBAL and > LOCAL definitions? > > Also, if we define a shared item element, then that will need to be > specified outside of any specific data category. > I would be against this - it will let readers think that there is another mechanism. It isn't - it is just a shortcut to repeat things, specific to some data categories. It doesn't have any influence on selection mechanisms. Users and implementors would be rather confused by a generalization. > > Also, in a related comment in provenance, just before ex 61: > "[Ed. note: Not sure if we need the standoff version globally. We don't > have it with quality either. Thoughts?]" > > The answer is yes we do want standoff globally for the same reasons as > for localisationQualityIssues > > Again, not sure, see the "too many global rules" issue. > 2) In both locqualissue and proveance we allow locQualityIssuesRef and > translationProvenanceRecordsRef > to be used along side the 'regular' attributes, e.g. > LocQualityType|Comment|Severity|Profile|Enabled > > So if the selection (global or local) is annotated by n sets of these > attributes, it can be done either by having one included in the global rule > or local element and n-1 in the stand off or none in the global rule or > local element and n int eh standoff. There is no significance to which set > go where, so it there any advantage to supporting both these options? > > Would it make the parsing easier just to make these stand off ref mutually > exclusive to the use of the annotation in the global rule or local element > - so only one option need be handled for mutiple attribute sets? > Again, this is going into a wrong direction - it will just confuse authors and implementors. Standoff has no influence to selection at all. Parsing with the current approach is very simple: a) Apply selection as described in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Sep/0011.html b) Take the information you get from the selection that counts (local, global, inheritance, defaults, nothing) Then, c) If there is a standoff "ref" attribute, resolve it and add the standoff information to the ITS information for the node in question. Now, c) is independent of selection - it is just an additional, data category specific requirement, like e.g. for idValue http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#idvalue-implementation "If the attribute xml:id is present for the selected node, the value of the xml:id attribute MUST take precedence over the idValue value." So no new magic needed :) Best, Felix > e.g global rule wording would be: > > - > > A required selector attribute. It contains an absolute selector<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#selectors> > which selects the nodes to which this rule applies. > > *Exactly one of the following* > > - > > *Exactly one of the following:* > - > > A locQualityIssuesRef attribute. Its value is a URI pointing to the > locQualityIssues element containing the list of issues related to > this content. > - > > A locQualityIssuesRefPointer attribute that contains a relative > selector<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#selectors> > pointing to a node with the exact same semantics as > locQualityIssuesRef. > > > - *the following* > > > - > > At least one of the following: > - > > Exactly one of the following: > - > > A locQualityIssueType attribute that implements the type > information<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#lqissueDefs> > . > - > > A locQualityIssueTypePointer attribute that contains a relative > selector<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#selectors> > pointing to a node with the exact same semantics as > locQualityIssueType. > - > > Exactly one of the following: > - > > A locQualityIssueComment attribute that implements the comment > information<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#lqissueDefs> > . > - > > A locQualityIssueCommentPointer attribute that contains a relative > selector<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#selectors> > pointing to a node with the exact same semantics as > locQualityIssueComment. > - > > None or exactly one of the following: > - > > A locQualityIssueSeverity attribute that implements the severity > information<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#lqissueDefs> > . > - > > A locQualityIssueSeverityPointer attribute that contains a relative > selector<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#selectors> > pointing to a node with the exact same semantics as > locQualityIssueSeverity. > - > > None or exactly one of the following: > - > > A locQualityIssueProfileRef attribute that implements the profile > reference information<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#lqissueDefs> > . > - > > A locQualityIssueProfileRefPointer attribute that contains a relative > selector<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#selectors> > pointing to a node with the exact same semantics as > locQualityIssueProfileRef. > - > > None or exactly one of the following: > - > > A locQualityIssueEnabled attribute that implements the enabled > information<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#lqissueDefs> > . > - > > A locQualityIssueEnabledPointer attribute that contains a relative > selector<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#selectors> > pointing to a node with the exact same semantics as > locQualityIssueEnabled. > > cheers, > Dave > > > On 23/10/2012 20:45, Yves Savourel wrote: > > I have only one comment:**** > > ** ** > > When using the Translation Agent provenance stand-off notation, could we > possibly use the same item-container and item elements for other data > categories? That is, re-use common elements for Translation Agent > Provenance and Localization Quality Issue, for example.**** > > ** ** > > <its:items xml:id="1">**** > > <its:item itsXYZ…/>**** > > </its:items>**** > > ** ** > > The name could be records/record, or items/item, etc. it doesn’t matter. > But we would re-use it in all stand-off cases.**** > > ** ** > > -yves**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Dave Lewis [mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>] > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 23, 2012 12:00 PM > *To:* public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > *Subject:* Re: [ISSUE-22] Provenance and Agents**** > > ** ** > > Hi Felix, > In general this integration is a good move. The idea of using the > standoff list pattern from quality issue works well, and solves some of > the issue that required separate translation and translationRevision data > categories - so we may be able to consolidate the spec further now. > > Dom is going through this in detail currently, and we will get back with > some specific comments shortly. > > we really appreciate you putting this together, > Dave > > On 23/10/2012 18:27, Felix Sasaki wrote:**** > > Hi all, **** > > ** ** > > this may have been lost during conference / travel etc. Any thoughts on > this? Also for the implementors: is everybody fine with implementing this > single "translation provenance" data category?**** > > > Thanks,**** > > ** ** > > Felix**** > > 2012/10/18 Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>**** > > 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**** > > ** ** > > > > **** > > ** ** > > -- > Felix Sasaki **** > > DFKI / W3C Fellow**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > > -- Felix Sasaki DFKI / W3C Fellow
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 22:37:13 UTC