Re: Issue-68: RE: Thoughts?

Hi, all,
for today's discussion, I re-wrote the examples and the test cases for 
what we have proposed the disambiguation should look like.
Here's a pull request for the test suite: 
https://github.com/finnle/ITS-2.0-Testsuite/pull/5 - here you can see 
how the changes affect the test suite.

I only needed to rename attribute parsers, so it shouldn't be difficult 
for existing implementers.

-- Tadej

On 31. 01. 2013 17:10, Felix Sasaki wrote:
> Am 31.01.13 17:04, schrieb Mārcis Pinnis:
>> Hi Felix,
>>
>> Ok, then I misunderstood the minutes.
>>
>> Then that means that we are at considering just changing Disambiguation?
> Well, we separated the discussion into two parts.
>
>> I think that this solution should be directed to Christian, whether 
>> the proposal will resolve his comment or not?!
>
> Sure, but any other opinion might help too, e.g. about at least what 
> guidance we should give if people ask how terminology and a revised 
> disambiguation relate. And that guidance would be related again to 
> both data categories - and would need input from both data category 
> types of "heros".
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Mārcis ;o)
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:59 PM
>> To: Mārcis Pinnis
>> Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Issue-68: RE: Thoughts?
>>
>> Hi Mārcis,
>>
>> Am 31.01.13 16:52, schrieb Mārcis Pinnis:
>>> Hi Felix,
>>>
>>> I understood that during the call on Wednesday a new idea came up of 
>>> not having stand-off at all, but merging the two data categories.
>> Actually, no - the discussion was just about changing "disambiguation".
>> No discussion about merge. Summary of the change:
>> - drop the levels
>> - rename attributes and the data category to "text analysis annotation".
>>
>> As said at
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Jan/0254.html 
>>
>>
>>   > * Steps needed anyway for resolving issue-67 are: re-writing > 
>> the now "tan" section (previously "disambig"), and potentially > 
>> rewriting / merging "Terminology". Opinions on these topics or > 
>> volunteers, please step up.
>>
>> No discussion about whether a merge is still needed. See also the 
>> other mails from Yves, Tadej and I here 
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Jan/0254.html
>>
>> HTH,
>>
>> Felix
>>
>>> This would allow only one type of annotation at a time. This is fine 
>>> by me, however, then it has to be understood that process workflows 
>>> with two types of annotation will in general be impossible. Or ... 
>>> to be more precise, such workflows would simply not make sense as 
>>> the types are in general meant for different application 
>>> (consumption) purposes and if the applications differ, existing 
>>> mark-up may be in the way when trying to produce additional mark-up 
>>> with a different type.
>>>
>>> But ... this is, I believe, where we actually started the discussion 
>>> - of just merging the data categories. Also, if you remember, you 
>>> hinted to the fact that Terminology and Disambiguation has no 
>>> inheritance - that means that there may be an existing issue (or 
>>> limitation if you like that word better) in the current version, 
>>> because, for instance:
>>> <p
>>> its-tan-class-ref="http://nerd.eurecom.fr/ontology#Organization">University 
>>> of <b>London</b></p> also after the changes won't be a correct 
>>> annotation.
>>>
>>> So ... if that limitation (although it is a big limitation IMO) is 
>>> acceptable to everyone, then we may proceed, however ... there may 
>>> be objections to that?!
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Mārcis ;o)
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:35 PM
>>> To: Mārcis Pinnis
>>> Subject: Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Hi Mārcis,
>>>
>>> in case you have any further thoughts on
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Jan/
>>> 0258.html just let me or the list know - Christian and Tadej very
>>> likely will provide further input by Monday.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Felix
>
>