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

Hi Dave,

you are right about the rule precedence, good point. A question about the
separation "transAgent" vs. "revisionAgent" in general: is it important to
specify the order, e.g. who did the first revision, he second one etc?

A few more questions about the URIs for in the "transAgentRef" and
"transRevisionAgentRef" attributes:

1) Do you say anything about the type of information to be expected, e.g..
machine readable or human readable information? E.g. for "locnote" we focus
on examples with human readable information, also in the "ref" attributes;
but in your examples you have the "mailto" scheme. How can an application
know what is expected here, or do you have "best practices" what kind of
machine readable information should be provided?

2) In the transAgent / transAgentRef attributes, several values are
possible. But does it really make sense to have a transAgentRef without a
transAgent? Same for the revision agent. So instead of "at least of the
following", you could say: at least one of the following: a transAgent
attribute with an optional transAgentRef, or a transRevisionAgent attribute
with an optional transRevisionAgentRef attribute.

3) I would also locally say that the agent and the "ref" attributes MUST
appear at the same node, and that the "agent" attribute is mandatory.
Otherwise, you run into trouble with complex inheritance rules: what is
overriding what?

3) Another option to make things clearer globally would be two rules
elements: one <its:transAgentRule>, one <its:revisionAgentRule>, again with
optional "ref" attributes. That would also more directly reflect the local
approach.

4) Is the order of the comma separated values in the attributes
significant, and what happens if a value is missing? In the local example
you have C3PO as transAgent and these URIs as transAgentRef: mailto:
locutus@b.org http://www.thecollective.org
does this mean that both relate to C3PO, or for the 2nd URI, there is just
no transAgent given? Again, it sounds like making the agent attribute
mandatory and having the ref attributes optional would lower the number of
choices and increase interop.

Felix

2012/7/26 Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>

>  On 26/07/2012 08:01, Felix Sasaki wrote:
>
> P.S.: having just "agent" has of course the drawback that you need more
> rule elements to express the same information.
>
> However, it has the benefit that you can be more specific wrt optionality
> of attributes: currently, all "agent" related attributes are attributes, so
> this
>
>
> You mean all 'attributes are optional' right? Yes, that's a good point. I
> wasn't sure about the correct formulation for this and just took the lead
> from the rubyRule where all the attributes are also optional, but you are
> right this leaves the meaningless option of having no attribute for agent
> (I'm not sure if the same is a problem for ruby).
>
> Would a better formulation would be the following?
>
>    - A required *selector*<#138c2c798374e560_138c2b3ceddf80a1_att.selector.attribute.selector>attribute. It contains an XPath expression which selects the nodes to which
>    this rule applies.****
>    - At least one of the following:
>       - A *transAgent*<#138c2c798374e560_138c2b3ceddf80a1_att.local.no-ns.attribute.locNoteRef>attribute that contains one or more comma separated strings, each one
>       identifying a different translation agent.****
>       - A *transAgentRef*<#138c2c798374e560_138c2b3ceddf80a1_att.local.no-ns.attribute.locNoteRef>attribute that contains one or more space-separated IRI, each referring to
>       a resource that identifies a different translation agent.****
>       - A *transRevisionAgent*<#138c2c798374e560_138c2b3ceddf80a1_att.local.no-ns.attribute.locNoteRef>attribute that contains one or more comma separated strings, each one
>       identifying a different translation revision agent.****
>       - A *transRevisionAgentRef*<#138c2c798374e560_138c2b3ceddf80a1_att.local.no-ns.attribute.locNoteRef>attribute that contains one or more space-separated IRI, each referring to
>       a resource that identifies a different translation revision agent.**
>       **
>
>
>  <its:agentRule selector="/html/body/par"/>
> would be legal, but doesn't make sense. If you have just the "agent"
> attribute and "agentRef", you can say that both (or just the former?) are
> mandatory - also the "agentType" attribute.
>
>  Felix
>
>
> cheers,
> Dave
>
>
>
>  2012/7/26 Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
>
>> Hi Dave, all,
>>
>>  About
>>
>>  "Two types of Translation Provenance Agent data categories are needed
>> to identify:"
>>
>>  and the data category in general: wouldn't it be possible to have just
>> two attributes "agent" and "agentRef", and an additional one "type" with
>> the values "transAgent" or "revisionAgent"? In that they there are less
>> attributes and also less pointer attributes (see Yves' comment). It would
>> look like this I think:
>>
>>  <its:agentRule selector="/html/body/par" its:agentRef="
>> http://www.onlinemtexample.com/2012/7/25/legal-v1/wsdl/"
>>  type="transAgent" />
>>
>>
>>   <its:agentRule selector="/html/body/par" agent="John Doe,
>> acme-CAT-v2.3" type="revisionAgent"/>
>>
>>
>>
>> Small editorial thing: your examples above said "its:domainRule", I
>> changed that to "agentRule".
>>
>>
>>  Another note: in ITS global rules, we always used attributes without a
>> namespace, e.g. "agents" instead of "its:agents".
>>
>>
>>
>> Felix
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/7/25 Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> Given the implementation commitment to provenance and the previous
>>> posting on this subject,
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Jun/0161.htmlplease find attached the proposed specification for the Translation
>>> Provenance Agent plus the example files.
>>>
>>> As a reminder, and as discussed in the original post and mentioned at
>>> the last WG call, provenance covers two essentially independent approaches:
>>> agent provenance, (which is this one), and standoff provenance, which we
>>> are treating as two individual data categories. I will send on the standoff
>>> provenance call for concensus shortly.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>   --
>> Felix Sasaki
>> DFKI / W3C Fellow
>>
>>
>
>
>  --
> Felix Sasaki
> DFKI / W3C Fellow
>
>
>


-- 
Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow