W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > October 2012

Re: [all] Question on mapping best practices

From: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 23:39:34 +0000
Message-ID: <508DC236.40503@cs.tcd.ie>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:31:56 UTC