This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 3007 - Terminology: "data category"
Summary: Terminology: "data category"
Alias: None
Product: ITS
Classification: Unclassified
Component: ITS tagset (show other bugs)
Version: WorkingDraft
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Felix Sasaki
QA Contact: Felix Sasaki
Depends on:
Reported: 2006-03-15 14:30 UTC by Felix Sasaki
Modified: 2006-07-24 10:25 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Description Felix Sasaki 2006-03-15 14:30:07 UTC
Discussion from Richard and Felix:

Richard Ishida: felix, where did the term 'data category' come from?  was it out there, or did we make it up?
fsasaki: Christian brought it up, saying it is defined in an ISO standard. He then had an action item to get the reference, which we forgot to keep track of.
Richard Ishida: i think DITA is using something like 'information type' - which sounds much more readily understandable
Richard Ishida: and less like a 'false friend'
Richard Ishida: data categories always has me thinking of data types
Richard Ishida: which i suppose you could justify using xml schema speak, but nontheless...
Richard Ishida: not as clear for the newcomer
fsasaki: we need a term which makes clear that we define "abstract" what e.g. translatability means (that is, we define it in prose), and have several concrete implementations: local versus global, and schema declarations in several schema languages. What term would make that difference clear?
Richard Ishida: information type
Richard Ishida: its intuitively understandable
Richard Ishida: too
fsasaki: not for me ...
fsasaki: do you have a reference except DITA? Since DITA uses "information type" quite different than what we do in ITS. also, the DITA mechanisms are quite different from our global rules
Richard Ishida: no, no other reference
Richard Ishida: it's just that data category never conveyed to me what we were talking about and needed defining and explaining and always sounds foriegn (made up), whereas 'information type' immediately suggests something to me that is a good base for my understanding
Richard Ishida: note that my reading of 'information type' is not 'information related type', but 'type of information'
fsasaki: my English native speaker feeling is too week to judge this  ; however, if you mean "type of information", it might be better to use that term. E.g.: "ITS defines various types of information: information about translatability, localization information etc. This information can be implemented in various ways (as for usage in instances: global versus local; as for ITS markup declarations: schema language specific versus independent)." . That is: we avoid any technical term for this abstract layer (no "data categories" and no "information type"), but just say "information".  
Richard Ishida: that could be an improvement
Comment 1 Yves Savourel 2006-03-29 17:05:31 UTC
Another of the dicussion topics for this week is this issue: Is "data category" the right term for what we call currently "data category"?

I feel "data category" a bit abstract for most readers. But since we do have a definition for it ( it may not be an issue. (BTW, I noticed that the spec uses the term several times before it's defined).

"information" may be fine as well. I have no strong opinion one way or another.

Comment 2 Yves Savourel 2006-04-07 19:43:19 UTC
No change to be made.
Comment 3 Felix Sasaki 2006-07-24 10:25:34 UTC
Closed, no further action necessary.