- From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 07:08:06 -0700
- To: <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
>> 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. > > Not sure if I understand: if we set "tan-type" to "term" and have > the "ident-ref" attribute: wouldn't that be teh lik to the termDB? What I meant is: there is a single attribute in ITS1 to represent 2 things, while in ITS2 we would have 2 distinct attributes. Converting ITS1 markup to ITS2 would not be a simple matter of renaming or auto-rewriting the markup. A human would have to make choice in some cases. >> 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. > > Not sure - if the term+disambig standoff is adopted, I actually would rather > call it different, e.g. "multilayer annotation" - and keep everything else > as is. The rational is that the other mechanisms seem to work fine. So I > wouldn't make the multilayer approach for disambig+term a big dial and new > architectural principle, to be deployed for other data categories - but rather > a means (to be defined in the respective sub section) trying to resolve a > last call comment. I don't see a difference between what the standoff markup of LQI/Provenance does and this standoff for Term+Disambiguation does. They both allow you to assign several instances of the same data category on a single node. As a user I would not understand why there would be two different ways to do it. ...Or I'm missing something. >> 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. > > See above - I think the proposed algorithm for fetching the multilayer info for > disambig+term described in the previous mail (fetch for each node the annotation > wrapper and resolve the IDs) is fairly simple - and we wouldn't need to > change other parts of the spec IMO. And we should not. But, IMO, we should be consistent in how standoff markup is done, so we should adjust the Term+Disambiguation proposal to match the existing standoff mechanism we already have. In other words: Why should Term+Disambiguation standoff works by pointing from the standoff data into the inline content, while the current standoff mechanism works the other way around? I don't see any difference in what we try to achieve. So why a different mechanism? (just trying to understand). >> (From Dave) >> iii) you loose the ability to associate standoff elements and >> content through global ITS rules, and hence loose the ability >> to annotate content in attributes. > > True - but that ability is not needed for disambiguation and terminology > anyway: as I understand it most annotation tools in both areas work on > text content. Also, I don't have seen global rules for terminology > working on attribute content. Others, have you? Not so far. But global rules yes: dfn for example. Best, -yves
Received on Monday, 28 January 2013 14:08:32 UTC