Re: issue-41 (mtconfidence), issue-42 (mtConfidence, textAnalysisAnnotation, quality)

Hi Yves,

thanks for your replies.

2012/9/19 Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>

> Thanks for the explanations Felix.
>
> -- As far as I can tell (but I may have missed one) we don't have any
> example in 1.0 or the test suite that demonstrates the overriding is for
> all information of a multi-information data category, even when the local
> information is undefined. And indeed we don't have an example demonstrating
> the contrary either.
>
> -- The case of defining 'termInfoRef' as optional along with 'term' for
> the local markup doesn't demonstrate anything IMO, it says it's optional,
> but doesn't say if its absence also overrides a previous rule. In general
> absence of an attribute means it has no effect.
>
> -- The modified example you send in the other email simply shows that when
> the non-complete overriding semantics are used you have to override all
> information explicitly. One cannot guess an intention from an example. If
> the intention is to have alerts for the three notes, the example is fine.
>

Yes, but ... that is the main point with the incomplete overriding: you
cannot be sure what it means if there is partial overriding: is it an
oversight of the data category user or intended?

Also, for more complex data categories like lq-issue
http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#lqissue-local
what would we do: would a local locQualityType override a standoff
qualityType? Would locQuality comments local inline / standoff / global
just added or would they replace each other.


>
> -- Even your implementation, Sebastian's (or mine which happen to also to
> do complete overriding) isn't a formal proof that the intention of 1.0 was
> to do complete overriding: they are not tested against anything that would
> give a different output with the non-complete overriding semantics.
>
>
> ...But, there is the outputType attribute in the 1.0 test suite result
> format.
> Since it is defined at the node level rather than in each information it
> does indeed prove to me the intent to have a complete overriding in 1.0.
> Sorry I missed that.
>
> Then, you are right obviously: we must stay backward compatible.
>
> But we probably need something more explicit than the current sentence:
> "Override semantics are always complete, that is all information that is
> specified in one rule element is overridden by the next one" in 2.0 to make
> the intent very clear.
> Or we should change the example so it shows a local undefined information
> overriding a global one.
>

You are right. Let's discuss that tomorrow, and also what that could mean
for the various data categories.

Best,

Felix


>
> Cheers,
> -yves
>
>
>


-- 
Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow