RE: issue-68 from an annotation representation point of view, with potential implications for annotatorsRef and standoff markup

Hi Felix, Jörg, all,

A few notes with the proposed mechanism:

> Comparison to current ITS1 "Terminology": 
> its-tan-type="term" plays the role of term="yes".
> its-tan-info-ref plays the role of termInfoRef.
> its-tan-ident-ref links to a term data base.
> its-tan-confidence provide confidence information.

a) We don't have a term='no' anymore. I know it's a little used feature, but the bottom line is: it goes away (you can't override a global rule that marks a given element as 'term' anymore).

b) Links to term DB have been put in termInfoRef so far, so we would basically split the termInfoRef features into two. I'm not against, I'm just pointing out that conversion from ITS1 to ITS2 won't be automatic.

> - If there is inline annotation, check if there is an id attribute
> (in HTML) or xml:id (if XML serizalization of HTML is used and 
> with lower precedence compared to id). For formats other than HTML,
> add xml:id if possible or use the id attribute appropriate 
> for that format.

It seems we would have two very different ways to use standoff markup: LQI and Provenance use a reference to the standoff enclosing element, here we would have the reference in the enclosing element to the local inline content. It would probably be better to be consistent.

In addition using some kind of tan-ref attribute would allow us to use a IRI and point outside of the document if needed (see Jörg's comments bout that).

Also, for LQI and Provenance we also have either local attributes or standoff markup, not both at the same time like in this proposal. It would be also probably better to be consistent.


Received on Sunday, 27 January 2013 23:12:49 UTC