Re: [all] call for concensus on Translation Provenance Agent (related to ISSUE-22)

Hi Yves,
thanks for this - comments below:

> Hi Dave, all
>
> Thanks for the updated text Dave.
>
> A few notes:
>
> 1) Spelling
>
> The text seems to be in UK English (e.g. organisation vs organization).
> I think we use US spelling in the ITS specification.
good point, i'll fix this.
>
> 2) IRI vs URI
>
> In ITS 1.0 we used URI. I can't recall exactly why (maybe IRI was not final yet then?). But we need to be consistent and use one or the other for 2.0.
Yes, this occurred to me and i was also going to raise it in general. I 
think to be consistent with best practice of the internationalization 
activity, not to mention the inherently global market for conforming 
products we should go for IRI when not otherwise constrained.

>
> 3) Example text (very minor)
>
> To avoid the wrath of the purists, in the example for local markup its-trans-agent="C3PO" should be its-trans-agent="C-3PO", if it refers to what I think.
>
A shocking oversight on my part, the force is indeed strong in you :-)

On a serious note though, are we restricted in using copyrighted or 
trademarked terms in our examples? Felix?

> 4) Global rules
>
> ...
>
> I think the proposed global rules don't cover the first goal. We can associate a prov(Revision)Agent and a prov(Revision)AgentRef defined in a global rule with selected nodes, but we cannot tell that a given element or attribute of the host vocabulary has existing constructs that implement such information.
>
> In other words: the values of prov(Revision)Agent and prov(Revision)AgentRef can be held only by ITS attributes.
>
> For example how would we indicate that 'agent' and 'revAgent' are the equivalent of its:provAgent and its:provRevisionAgent in this document:
>
> <text>
>   <title>Translation Provenance Agent: Local Test in XML</title>
>   <body>
>    <par agent='C-P3O' revAgent='Luke'>This paragraph was machine translated and then postedited.</par>
>    <legalnotice agent='Luke'>This legal text was subject to translation by manual means.</legalnotice>
>      </body>
> </text>
>
> (DocBook or DITA may have better examples).
>
> I think we'll need four extra attributes in the global rules: provAgentPointer, provAgentRefPointer, provRevionAgentPointer, and provRevisionAgentRefPointer. See the Localization Note data category for an example of similar pattern (http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#locNote-implementation)
>

I guess i was just trying to keep things simple, but this is a good 
point - keeping the Ref&Pointer pattern make sense and keeps this data 
category consistent with the others. I will address this.

This might make definition a bit lengthy, so does it make sense to split 
translation agent and revision agent into two different data category 
definitions? Its sort of an editorial decision.

cheers,
Dave


> Cheers,
> -yves
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 26 July 2012 11:07:58 UTC