- From: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
- Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 23:39:34 +0000
- To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
On 26/10/2012 19:12, Felix Sasaki wrote: > Wrt to your comments and ITS mechanisms: why use them at all? Why not > specifying the mapping in general, e.g. in a separate profile of ITS > "how to use ITS in XLIFF"? We then won't need to use any ITS > mechanisms at all - an ITS implementation can use the mapping or not. > > Above answer may be not enough, let's take it from where. Hi Felix, Yves, David, all, I think having a separate profile has some distinct advantages. As we've discussed in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Oct/0307.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Oct/0310.html it seem for some data categories (QualityIssue, Quality Precis, transAgentProvenance, disambiguation, text analysis annotation/confidence and mtconfidence), the main and possibly only use case for (ref)pointer attribute is the XLIFF mapping case. See yves example in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Oct/0357.html So if the _only_ use case for pointers in these data categories is supporting the XLIFF mapping in this declarative manner, then supporting the same in a separate ITS profile could help simplify these data categories considerably. What do you think? cheers, Dave
Received on Sunday, 28 October 2012 23:40:03 UTC