Re: Terminology Example 38

And now to the list ...

Am 30.11.12 09:36, schrieb Felix Sasaki:
> Hi Fredrik,
>
> Am 28.11.12 18:58, schrieb Fredrik Liden:
>>
>> In the draft, Example 38: Usage of the termInfoPointer attribute 
>> (terminology1xml.xml), is id(@def) is a valid value for Pointer values?
>>
>> *<text>*
>>
>> *<its:rules*version="2.0"xmlns:its="http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its"*>*
>>
>> *<its:termRule*selector="//term"term="yes"termInfoPointer="id(@def)"*/>*
>>
>> *</its:rules>*
>>
>> *<p>*We may define *<term*def="TDPV"*>*discoursal point of 
>> view*</term>*as
>>
>> *<gloss*xml:id="TDPV"*>*the relationship, expressed through discourse 
>> structure, between the
>>
>>     implied author or some other addresser, and the 
>> fiction.*</gloss></p>*
>>
>> *</text>*
>>
>> Fredrik
>>
>
>
> yes, it is. id(@def) is a function call, and that's allowed as part of 
> a relative location path. See
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath/#NT-RelativeLocationPath
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath/#NT-Step
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath/#NT-Predicate
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath/#NT-Expr
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath/#NT-FunctionCall
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>
>> *From:*Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 28, 2012 2:41 AM
>> *To:* public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org 
>> <mailto:public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>; philr@vistatec.ie 
>> <mailto:philr@vistatec.ie>
>> *Subject:* Re: [ACTION-320]: Localization Quality Précis Retain in Spec.
>>
>> Am 28.11.12 10:54, schrieb Phil Ritchie:
>>
>>     All
>>
>>     Arle and I spoke this morning.
>>
>>     VistaTEC definitely sees a requirement for Localisation Quality
>>     Précis - that is, a data category to contain document level,
>>     quality related metadata. The locQualityIssue metadata has much
>>     more meaning when it is referenced back to an overall score and
>>     pass/fail threshold and optionally point to other non-normative
>>     information (contained in the rating).
>>
>>     There is a current proposal for a change of name to "Localization
>>     Quality Rating" at
>>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Nov/0151.html.
>>     I have no objection to this.
>>
>>     Implementations: VistaTEC would be an implementer of this
>>     category. Arle thinks that he could provide a second
>>     implementation but cannot commit to having it ready until March
>>     2013.
>>
>>     Later today/tomorrow I will revise section 8.18 to reflect the
>>     naming change and amend the description and post back to the group.
>>
>>     The only questions I have having re-read the Loc. Quality
>>     sections are about capturing the "agent" and "tool". Given that
>>     the Translation Agent Provenance data category can be used freely
>>     in combination with Localization Quality Issue and Localization
>>     Quality Rating then I see no problem with the former and if we
>>     have a data category independent mechanism for "tool" then I'm
>>     happy there also. Given these two assumptions I see no need to
>>     change any of the Localization Quality Rating attributes.
>>
>>
>> So do you need all the pointer and non pointer attributes at
>> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#lqprecis-implementation
>> all of the counter parts of these attributes have been dropped. If 
>> wen drop them for lqprecis too that would mean there will be no 
>> global markup for lqprecis, just local. For lq issues there is now 
>> just global rule attributes to point to standoff list of issues. but 
>> lq precis doesn't have a counterpart here.
>>
>> In summary, what you did so far is not enough to keep lqprecis or 
>> whatever we will call it here. Please take the time to think 
>> carefully what mechanisms you really need, and do it soon.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Felix
>>
>> Jirka, is this enough information that you can proceed with the 
>> schema's?
>>
>> Phil.
>>
>>
>> ************************************************************
>> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
>> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
>> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
>> the sender immediately by e-mail.
>>
>> www.vistatec.com <http://www.vistatec.com>
>> ************************************************************
>>
>