Re: [ISSUE-55] XLIFF mapping - update to mtconfidence and domain

OK, for the separate namespace
no problem for XLIFF mapping
I just though that there would be value in keeping all the extensions in
one place, for better discoverability..
Yves said that having more xsds is not an issue..

The issue with the un-stability preamble that Felix pointed out is a graver
one, I think XLIFF TC would have a problem to point to something that even
does not aim to be stable.. I mean when working on the ITS module in the
future.. no it is just a private namespace extension..

Our xsd would be stable but it would be hard to explain anyway..

Rgds
dF

Dr. David Filip
=======================
LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS
University of Limerick, Ireland
telephone: +353-6120-2781
*cellphone: +353-86-0222-158*
facsimile: +353-6120-2734
mailto: david.filip@ul.ie


On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:

> Am 18.03.13 21:51, schrieb Yves Savourel:
>
>  Hi Felix,
>>
>> I have nothing against having a separate one.
>>
>> I was just thinking it really must be either an OASIS or a W3C one. My
>> guess is that since we are planning to have some life through the IG after
>> the WG (BP, LQI types, etc.), it may be better to do all that in the W3C.
>>
>
> Good point. That may also serve as an incentive for people to contribute
> to the IG.
>
>
>
>> Could we have something like: http://www.w3.org/2013/03/its-**xliff<http://www.w3.org/2013/03/its-xliff>?
>>
>
> Hi Yves,
>
> yes, that should work.
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>
>
>
>> -ys
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
>> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 2:38 PM
>> To: Yves Savourel
>> Cc: 'Dave Lewis'; public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.**org<public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
>> Subject: Re: [ISSUE-55] XLIFF mapping - update to mtconfidence and domain
>>
>> Hi Yves, all,
>>
>> Am 18.03.13 18:14, schrieb Yves Savourel:
>>
>>> Hi Dave, all,
>>>
>>> A few notes on the mapping:
>>>
>>> --- for MT Confidence.
>>>
>>> This data category has several use cases:
>>>
>>> - What do we do if we it in the original document (i.e. how do we map
>>> it to XLIFF (if at all))
>>> - How do we represent mt-confidence in alt-trans and how that gets back
>>> into the original document (if at all).
>>>
>>> for using quality-match in alt-trans: I suppose the value of
>>> quality-match is so loose that I suppose it can include the mt-confidence.
>>> But I'm really not sure that in such case the origin must be 'MT'. Origin
>>> is already in use today for indicating more specific information (e.g. not
>>> just MT but Google-Translate or Bing-Translator for example).
>>> Having origin set to 'mt' or not doesn't really bring anything to the
>>> mapping.
>>>
>>>
>>> --- for the ITS extension namespace.
>>>
>>> I really think we can use the existing http://www.w3.org/2008/12/its-**
>>> extensions <http://www.w3.org/2008/12/its-extensions> URI. What we
>>> define are attributes/elements that are meant to be used in specific
>>> context and don't have necessarily relationship with each other. So I think
>>> it's fine to have a schema for XLIFF+ITS/X that is used to validate such
>>> profile.
>>>
>> It would probably be cleaner to have a separate namespace URI, esp.
>> since as the namespace doc at
>> http://www.w3.org/2008/12/its-**extensions<http://www.w3.org/2008/12/its-extensions>
>> says
>> "Note that the extensions of this namespace are not supposed to be
>> stable, but are being discussed in the Interest Group."
>>
>> Is there a reason not to have a separate URI, besides that I was rather
>> slow in following my action item to install one?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Felix
>>
>>
>>  cheers,
>>> -yves
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>