- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 00:36:43 +0200
- To: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
- Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAL58czpeCSeO=yghWeB+4iKDQy2jE=BTEm+-98zr99EwLmxGCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Dave, all,
2012/10/26 Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
> Hi Yves,
> I don't see immediately why not. 'Items' is nice and neutral
>
> But would it not be easier to retain the item element name from the
> different data categories? e.g.
>
> <its:items id="1">
> <its:locQualityIssue locQualityIssueType="misspelling"
> locQualityIssueComment="'c'es' is unknown. Could be 'c'est'"
> locQualityIssueSeverity="50"/>
> <its:translationProvenanceRecord
>
> transToolRef="http://www.onlinemtex.com/2012/7/25/wsdl/"<http://www.onlinemtex.com/2012/7/25/wsdl/>
> transOrg="acme-CAT-v2.3"
> transRevToolRef="http://www.mycat.com/v1.0/download"<http://www.mycat.com/v1.0/download>
> transRevOrg="acme-CAT-v2.3"
> provRef=
> "http://www.examplelsp.com/excontent987/productio/prov/e6354"<http://www.examplelsp.com/excontent987/productio/prov/e6354>
> />
> </its:items>
>
Yves wrote at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Oct/0296.html
"We said we should have a single root element in each script. So you would
just have several scripts if you have several stand-off references."
To resolve my concern
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Oct/0294.html
See "Could this create a conflict".
What you do above does create the conflict, in terms of
- conformance (does an implementation just implementing locquality issue
need to pass all information, including its:translationProvenanceRecord, or
throw it away?), or in terms of
- precedence ("I am implementing locquality issue globally,
and translationProvenance locally - what do I do if there is in one script
element both information?).
So I think we need to keep separate items elements.
>
> Two other quick questions about standoff markup:
> 1) in Localization Quality issue, where the locQualityIssue element is
> defined under the GLOBAL definition there is a editor note saying
> "[Ed. note: Should locQualityIssues also be defined for global rules? It
> seems not to be specific to local.]"
>
> the answer is surely yes as
> a) locQualityIssues is referred to also from the global definition
>
Well, we can change that, if there is no use case and implementer :)
> and
> b) because the need to support more than one set of the same data category
> attribute for the same node applies regardless of how it is selected.
>
Yes, but standoff does not define new data category attributes - it just
defines a mechanism to *repeat* attributes. And if that is not needed
globally, why add it?
>
> Would the best solution is therefore to define it before both GLOBAL and
> LOCAL definitions?
>
> Also, if we define a shared item element, then that will need to be
> specified outside of any specific data category.
>
I would be against this - it will let readers think that there is another
mechanism. It isn't - it is just a shortcut to repeat things, specific to
some data categories. It doesn't have any influence on selection
mechanisms. Users and implementors would be rather confused by a
generalization.
>
> Also, in a related comment in provenance, just before ex 61:
> "[Ed. note: Not sure if we need the standoff version globally. We don't
> have it with quality either. Thoughts?]"
>
> The answer is yes we do want standoff globally for the same reasons as
> for localisationQualityIssues
>
>
Again, not sure, see the "too many global rules" issue.
> 2) In both locqualissue and proveance we allow locQualityIssuesRef and
> translationProvenanceRecordsRef
> to be used along side the 'regular' attributes, e.g.
> LocQualityType|Comment|Severity|Profile|Enabled
>
> So if the selection (global or local) is annotated by n sets of these
> attributes, it can be done either by having one included in the global rule
> or local element and n-1 in the stand off or none in the global rule or
> local element and n int eh standoff. There is no significance to which set
> go where, so it there any advantage to supporting both these options?
>
> Would it make the parsing easier just to make these stand off ref mutually
> exclusive to the use of the annotation in the global rule or local element
> - so only one option need be handled for mutiple attribute sets?
>
Again, this is going into a wrong direction - it will just confuse authors
and implementors. Standoff has no influence to selection at all.
Parsing with the current approach is very simple:
a) Apply selection as described in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Sep/0011.html
b) Take the information you get from the selection that counts (local,
global, inheritance, defaults, nothing)
Then,
c) If there is a standoff "ref" attribute, resolve it and add the standoff
information to the ITS information for the node in question.
Now, c) is independent of selection - it is just an additional, data
category specific requirement, like e.g. for idValue
http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#idvalue-implementation
"If the attribute xml:id is present for the selected node, the value of the
xml:id attribute MUST take precedence over the idValue value."
So no new magic needed :)
Best,
Felix
> e.g global rule wording would be:
>
> -
>
> A required selector attribute. It contains an absolute selector<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#selectors>
> which selects the nodes to which this rule applies.
>
> *Exactly one of the following*
>
> -
>
> *Exactly one of the following:*
> -
>
> A locQualityIssuesRef attribute. Its value is a URI pointing to the
> locQualityIssues element containing the list of issues related to
> this content.
> -
>
> A locQualityIssuesRefPointer attribute that contains a relative
> selector<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#selectors>
> pointing to a node with the exact same semantics as
> locQualityIssuesRef.
>
>
> - *the following*
>
>
> -
>
> At least one of the following:
> -
>
> Exactly one of the following:
> -
>
> A locQualityIssueType attribute that implements the type
> information<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#lqissueDefs>
> .
> -
>
> A locQualityIssueTypePointer attribute that contains a relative
> selector<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#selectors>
> pointing to a node with the exact same semantics as
> locQualityIssueType.
> -
>
> Exactly one of the following:
> -
>
> A locQualityIssueComment attribute that implements the comment
> information<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#lqissueDefs>
> .
> -
>
> A locQualityIssueCommentPointer attribute that contains a relative
> selector<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#selectors>
> pointing to a node with the exact same semantics as
> locQualityIssueComment.
> -
>
> None or exactly one of the following:
> -
>
> A locQualityIssueSeverity attribute that implements the severity
> information<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#lqissueDefs>
> .
> -
>
> A locQualityIssueSeverityPointer attribute that contains a relative
> selector<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#selectors>
> pointing to a node with the exact same semantics as
> locQualityIssueSeverity.
> -
>
> None or exactly one of the following:
> -
>
> A locQualityIssueProfileRef attribute that implements the profile
> reference information<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#lqissueDefs>
> .
> -
>
> A locQualityIssueProfileRefPointer attribute that contains a relative
> selector<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#selectors>
> pointing to a node with the exact same semantics as
> locQualityIssueProfileRef.
> -
>
> None or exactly one of the following:
> -
>
> A locQualityIssueEnabled attribute that implements the enabled
> information<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#lqissueDefs>
> .
> -
>
> A locQualityIssueEnabledPointer attribute that contains a relative
> selector<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#selectors>
> pointing to a node with the exact same semantics as
> locQualityIssueEnabled.
>
> cheers,
> Dave
>
>
> On 23/10/2012 20:45, Yves Savourel wrote:
>
> I have only one comment:****
>
> ** **
>
> When using the Translation Agent provenance stand-off notation, could we
> possibly use the same item-container and item elements for other data
> categories? That is, re-use common elements for Translation Agent
> Provenance and Localization Quality Issue, for example.****
>
> ** **
>
> <its:items xml:id="1">****
>
> <its:item itsXYZ…/>****
>
> </its:items>****
>
> ** **
>
> The name could be records/record, or items/item, etc. it doesn’t matter.
> But we would re-use it in all stand-off cases.****
>
> ** **
>
> -yves****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Dave Lewis [mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 23, 2012 12:00 PM
> *To:* public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: [ISSUE-22] Provenance and Agents****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi Felix,
> In general this integration is a good move. The idea of using the
> standoff list pattern from quality issue works well, and solves some of
> the issue that required separate translation and translationRevision data
> categories - so we may be able to consolidate the spec further now.
>
> Dom is going through this in detail currently, and we will get back with
> some specific comments shortly.
>
> we really appreciate you putting this together,
> Dave
>
> On 23/10/2012 18:27, Felix Sasaki wrote:****
>
> Hi all, ****
>
> ** **
>
> this may have been lost during conference / travel etc. Any thoughts on
> this? Also for the implementors: is everybody fine with implementing this
> single "translation provenance" data category?****
>
>
> Thanks,****
>
> ** **
>
> Felix****
>
> 2012/10/18 Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>****
>
> Hi Dave, Yves, all, ****
>
> ** **
>
> Dave, Yves and I had a discussion at the FEISGILLT event about provenance,
> and I updated the section at****
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#translation-agent-provenance
> ****
>
> with the idea that this data category should cover all three types of
> provenance: translation, revision, RDF-based standoff. The mechanism is
> copied from quality issue.****
>
> ** **
>
> Comments welcome,****
>
> ** **
>
> Felix ****
>
> ** **
>
> 2012/10/15 Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>****
>
> Hi Felix, Dave, all,****
>
> ****
>
> Felix: I think there is a difference in the way you use transProvRef and
> the way locQualityIssuesRef is currently defined. You use a list of URIs
> for transProvRef while locQualityIssuesRef defines a single URI that points
> to a set of issues.****
>
> ****
>
> To have both data categories be similar, you would have to have
> transProvref to point to a translationProvenanceRecords with one or more
> records. So in your example, two translationProvenanceRecords elements (one
> for each of the transProvRef).****
>
> ****
>
> But I agree that a similar stand-off structure could be used for both.****
>
> ****
>
> Cheers,****
>
> -yves****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 14, 2012 11:22 AM
> *To:* Dave Lewis
> *Cc:* public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: [ISSUE-22] Provenance and Agents****
>
> ****
>
> Hi Dave, all,****
>
> ****
>
> I added the translation provenance agent to****
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#translation-agent-provenance
> ****
>
> with a big warning that this is in an early stage. I changed a few things
> from your draft:****
>
> ****
>
> - XPath expressions in pointer attributes in the example: these were
> quite general; e.g. //dc:creator selects all "dc:creator" elements in the
> document. Esp. given the discussion we just have here ****
>
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Oct/0179.html
> ****
>
> this seems to be too general****
>
> ****
>
> - XPath expression in the selector, e.g.
> "selector="/html/body/legalnotice"" > "selector="/text/body/legalnotice""*
> ***
>
> I changed "/html/body/par" to "/text/body/par[1]", so that here only the
> first "par" element is selected. I realized here again that we haven't
> resolved the "tool many global rules" issue. Dave, can you take up this
> thread****
>
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Oct/0093.html
> ****
>
> Because depending on the outcome both provenance and many other data
> categories might change a lot****
>
> ****
>
> - I removed local XPath expressions, e.g. transToolPointer or
> transToolRefPointer attributes. We don't have local XPath - that has been
> discussed several times. If needed I can dig up the threads again, but it
> would save a lot of time if we could just agree on this. ****
>
> ****
>
> - I changed the local example. What you tried in the local example was a
> combination of global and local provenance information. But that doesn't
> work: we said now several times that overriding is always complete. So you
> cannot "through a local selection overriding part of the global rule.". You
> will override the complete rule. It doesn't matter whether the local
> attributes are in HTML5 or in XML, that doesn't change overriding.****
>
> ****
>
> In general I'm quite frustrated about the data category. The issue is not
> the pieces of information itself; what you specify (person, organization,
> tools) makes a lot of sense. The issue is that obviously the specification
> is not implementation driven, as can be seen by the non tested XPath
> expressions and the overriding that wouldn't work, even with a conformance
> only processor.****
>
> ****
>
> The other frustration comes from the speed and continuation of progress:
> to wrap this up we need a continuous discussion. So my main question is:
> will you and Phil have time to engage in this by the end of November, that
> is within the last call period? Or: can we engage somebody else interested
> in implementing this?****
>
> ****
>
> Now, about the data category in general ...****
>
> ****
>
> I think what you are trying to achieve is:****
>
> conveying several pieces of provenance information for agents:****
>
> initial revision = translation agent provenance;****
>
> subsequent revision = translation revision agent provenance;****
>
> complex revision information: standoff provenance.****
>
> ****
>
> We may have a similar picture like with quality issue: the complexity of
> this information might be better dealt with a standoff approach. I am not
> talking about the standoff approach in your example, Dave, but something
> like this:****
>
> ****
>
> [****
>
> <text xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:its="
> http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its"
> its:version="2.0">
> <head>
> <dc:creator>John Doe</dc:creator>
> <title>Translation Revision Provenance Agent: Global Test in
> XML</title>
> <its:translationProvenanceRecords>
> <its:translationProvenanceRecord xml:id="tp1"
> transToolRef="http://www.onlinemtex.com/2012/7/25/wsdl/"
> transOrg="acme-CAT-v2.3"/>
> <its:translationProvenanceRecord xml:id="tp2"
> transPerson="John Doe"
> transOrgRef="http://www.legaltrans-ex.com/"/>
> <its:translationProvenanceRecord xml:id="tp3"
> transPerson="Carl Meyer"
> transOrgRef="http://www.mytranslations.example.com/"/>
> <its:translationProvenanceRecord xml:id="tp4" provRef="
> http://www.examplemtservice.com/prov/e76547"/>
> </its:translationProvenanceRecords>
> </head>
> <body>
> <par its:transProvRef="#tp1"> This paragraph was translated from
> the machine.</par>
> <legalnotice postediting-by="http://www.vistatec.com/"
> its:transProvRef="#tp2 #tp3 #tp4">This text was
> translated directly by a person.</legalnotice>
> </body>
> </text>****
>
> ]****
>
> ****
>
> The interaction between "its:translationProvenanceRecords" and the
> local its:transProvRef attribute is identical to "its:locQualityIssues" and
> "its:locQualityIssuesRef" attribute.****
>
> ****
>
> In its:translationProvenanceRecords you have a list of
> "its:translationProvenanceRecord" elements. Each element has an "xml:id"
> attribute. We could say that the order of "its:translationProvenanceRecord"
> specifies whether this is translation agent provenance or revision agent
> provenance information. Or we could say that this is specified by the order
> of the values in "its:transProfRev". ”Your" standoff data category could be
> accommodated by <its:translationProvenanceRecord xml:id="tp4" provRef="
> http://www.examplemtservice.com/prov/e76547"/>.****
>
> ****
>
> You seem to have the use case of attaching several pieces of provenance
> information to the same node. With the ITS overriding that is not possible.
> But with the above approach tools can still do that, locally:****
>
> - first tool creates****
>
> <legalnotice postediting-by="http://www.vistatec.com/" its:transProvRef="#tp2">This
> text was
> translated directly by a person.</legalnotice>****
>
> - second tool creates****
>
> <legalnotice postediting-by="http://www.vistatec.com/" its:transProvRef="#tp2
> #tp3">This text was
> translated directly by a person.</legalnotice>****
>
> - third tool creates****
>
> <legalnotice postediting-by="http://www.vistatec.com/" its:transProvRef="#tp2
> #tp3 #tp4">This text was
> translated directly by a person.</legalnotice>****
>
> ****
>
> This all works without global "adding" rules (but keeping the pointer
> attributes in global rules). We just need guidance for the tool developers
> how to attach such complex pieces of information.****
>
> ****
>
> Also, for the simple local case we could still have ****
>
> <legalnotice postediting-by="http://www.vistatec.com/" its:transPerson="John
> Doe"
> its:transOrgRef="http://www.legaltrans-ex.com/"
> its:provRef="http://www.examplemtservice.com/prov/e76547">This text
> was translated directly by a person.</legalnotice>****
>
> ****
>
> But would say that you either have local markup or the external record,
> not both.****
>
> ****
>
> So in summary, above proposal would mean****
>
> - have only one provenance data category****
>
> - realize the need of specifying initial translation provenance, revision
> and standoff provenance at the same time like this: having lq issue like
> standoff elements****
>
> - realize the need of providing several pieces of information via several
> references to provenance records, e.g. its:transProvRef="#tp2 #tp3"****
>
> - have global rules only for pointing, see the other thread.****
>
> ****
>
> Best,****
>
> ****
>
> Felix****
>
> ****
>
> 2012/10/12 Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>****
>
> Hi All,
> Please find attached updates to the provenance related data categories
> ready to be included in the draft. Many thanks to Phil for reviewing these
> in detail.
>
> There are three separate data categories:
> - Translation Agent Provenance: which record machines, people and
> organsiations responsible for translating the selected text
>
> - Translation Agent Provenance: which records machines, people and
> organsiations responsible for revising the translation the selected text
> (e.g. from posteding or linguistic review)
>
> - Standoff Provenance: which provides a link to standoff provenance record
> using the W3C PROV standard.
>
> Comments welcome.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>
> - ****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> --
> Felix Sasaki****
>
> DFKI / W3C Fellow****
>
> ****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> Felix Sasaki ****
>
> DFKI / W3C Fellow****
>
> ** **
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> Felix Sasaki ****
>
> DFKI / W3C Fellow****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
>
>
--
Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 22:37:13 UTC