Thanks, Yves, it's minor and we will have time to argue it later, until cos
actually.. but it helps with the csprd04 timing to close it now
Dr. David Filip
===========
OASIS XLIFF OMOS TC Chair
OASIS XLIFF TC Secretary, Editor, Liaison Officer
Spokes Research Fellow
ADAPT Centre
KDEG, Trinity College Dublin
Mobile: +420-777-218-122
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Yves <
yves@opentag.com> wrote:
> Hi David,
>
>
>
> Sure, go ahead.
>
> If you think closing the issue without resolving it yet in this round
> helps, I have no objection.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> -yves
>
>
>
> *From:* David Filip [mailto:
david.filip@adaptcentre.ie]
> *Sent:* Friday, May 19, 2017 4:44 AM
> *To:* Yves <
yves@opentag.com>
> *Cc:* XLIFF Main List <
xliff@lists.oasis-open.org>;
>
xliff-comment@lists.oasis-open.org> *Subject:* Re: [xliff-comment] Re: [xliff] RE: [xliff-comment] Re:
> [xliff] csprd03 - remaining inline comment to resolve
>
>
>
> Yves, we're running out of time on this
>
>
>
> The recorded resolution
https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-53>
> says
>
> Remove the editorial uppercase comment and improve the Warning wording if
> necessary.
>
>
>
> Since it is a minor editorial issue, I suggest that we just drop the
> UPPERCASE editorial comment for now and keep the Warnings as they are..
>
> You can raise the issue of removing or improving the warnings again in the
> 4th public review. No danger that this one would send us for another round.
>
>
>
> Cheers and thanks
>
> dF
>
>
>
>
> Dr. David Filip
>
> ===========
>
> OASIS XLIFF OMOS TC Chair
>
> OASIS XLIFF TC Secretary, Editor, Liaison Officer
>
> Spokes Research Fellow
>
> ADAPT Centre
>
> KDEG, Trinity College Dublin
>
> Mobile: +420-777-218-122 <+420%20777%20218%20122>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 7:00 PM, David Filip <
david.filip@adaptcentre.ie>
> wrote:
>
> I agree that there are lot of cases where the syntactically correct
> doesn't give the intended info and in general we don't need to warn against
> them.
>
>
>
> I think this case is different, we say that the annotatorsRef is optional
> on that annotation when normatively defining the annotation, unless the
> annotation is in scope of an annotatorsRef for xyz datacat. We say that
> because this is what can be syntactically checked. But the intent of the
> notation is to give the intended value not just any syntactically matching
> value.
>
>
>
> The warning is informative (non-normative, as any other warning or note in
> the spec) and it helps the implementers who are coming from the XLIFF end.
>
>
>
> I think in this particular case the normative text has big potential to be
> misleading (at least for the "naive implementer" - and we agreed to be
> targeting the naive implementers, not to require "tribal knowledge" to
> successfully consume the spec), so the warning is warranted IMHO.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr. David Filip
>
> ===========
>
> OASIS XLIFF OMOS TC Chair
>
> OASIS XLIFF TC Secretary, Editor, Liaison Officer
>
> Spokes Research Fellow
>
> ADAPT Centre
>
> KDEG, Trinity College Dublin
>
> Mobile: +420-777-218-122 <+420%20777%20218%20122>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Yves <
yves@opentag.com> wrote:
>
> Hi David, all,
>
>
>
> Ø In other words, valid syntax can give the wrong information for
> reasons they haven't foreseen and they should double check. That's all.
>
>
>
> I’m more and more confused I’m afraid.
>
>
>
> Maybe you can give a concrete example of how one can give/get the wrong
> information?
>
> (And how do you know it’s wrong).
>
>
>
> Would it be something like this? (From example 20):
>
>
>
> <unit id="u1" its:annotatorsRef="mt-confidence|MTServices-XYZ">
>
> <segment>
>
> <mrk id="m1" type="its:generic" its:mtConfidence="0.8982">Some
> Machine
>
> Translated text.</mrk>
>
>
>
> And the tool “MTServices-XYZ” would not really be the tool that MTed the
> source text?
>
>
>
> I don’t see how that could happen, except if some tool does not its job
> conforming to the normal ITS constraints.
>
> But we don’t want such warnings: There are a lot of cases where the syntax
> can be right but the info wrong.
>
>
>
> Also, how can you “double check” such info?
>
> And if you guess it is wrong, what can you do about it?
>
>
>
> It’s like having a warning saying: “The state attribute may be
> syntactically correct but not have the intended value.” (Because a tool did
> not updated it properly).
>
> Such warnings are not really helping in my opinion.
>
>
>
> Or maybe I’m missing completely the meaning of that paragraph (which is
> quite possible).
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> -yves
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* David Filip [mailto:
david.filip@adaptcentre.ie]
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2017 2:32 AM
> *To:* Yves <
yves@opentag.com>
> *Cc:* XLIFF Main List <
xliff@lists.oasis-open.org>;
>
xliff-comment@lists.oasis-open.org> *Subject:* [xliff-comment] Re: [xliff] RE: [xliff-comment] Re: [xliff]
> csprd03 - remaining inline comment to resolve
>
>
>
> The reason why this is on exactly these three is that they must be in
> scope of a *relevant* annotatorsRef (some of them conditionally, but this
> is clear from the annotation description).
>
>
>
> This warning makes the implementer aware that being in scope is enough for
> validity but might not be enough to give the intended annotatorsRef
> information, I think that's an important warning and is XLIFF specific. In
> other words, valid syntax can give the wrong information for reasons they
> haven't foreseen and they should double check. That's all..
>
>
> Dr. David Filip
>
> ===========
>
> OASIS XLIFF OMOS TC Chair
>
> OASIS XLIFF TC Secretary, Editor, Liaison Officer
>
> Spokes Research Fellow
>
> ADAPT Centre
>
> KDEG, Trinity College Dublin
>
> Mobile: +420-777-218-122 <+420%20777%20218%20122>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:08 PM, Yves <
yves@opentag.com> wrote:
>
> Hi David, all,
>
>
>
> There are actually 3 places where that warning exists: For mtConfidence,
> for taConfidence and for termConfidence.
>
>
>
> The first problem I have is that I don’t understand it, or at least I’m
> not sure I understand it correctly. And since I’m not sure I understand it,
> I can’t provide you with a better wording J
>
> The second issue is that--if I understand it correctly--it seems to say:
> “Your confidence attribute may be in the scope of an annotatorsRef with the
> proper a xyz data category tool reference, but that reference may have been
> put there by another tool and has nothing to do with your value.”
>
>
>
> If this is the meaning of the warning, then I’m not sure I get it: A
> confidence provider is supposed to maintain the annotatorsRef for the
> confidence, so it should always make sure the confidence and the
> tool-reference info are set properly. Is this a warning for the case where
> a tool does not follow the ITS rules?
>
>
>
> In my humble opinion: Either the reader understand how annotatorsRef works
> and doesn’t need the warning, or the reader does not and needs a lot more
> information and should read the ITS specification.
>
>
>
> In other words: This is an ITS problem, we should leave ITS education to
> the ITS specification. I would recommend to keep things simple and just
> drop the 3 warnings.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> -yves
>
>
>
> *From:* David Filip [mailto:
david.filip@adaptcentre.ie]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 17, 2017 11:10 AM
> *To:* Yves Savourel <
ysavourel@enlaso.com>; XLIFF Main List <
>
xliff@lists.oasis-open.org>
> *Cc:*
xliff-comment@lists.oasis-open.org> *Subject:* [xliff-comment] Re: [xliff] csprd03 - remaining inline comment
> to resolve
>
>
>
> Hi Yves,
>
>
>
> would you please advise an improved wording for the warning?
>
>
> Warning
>
> This annotation can be syntactically in scope of a relevant
> its:annotatorsRef
> <http://docs.oasis-open.org/xliff/xliff-core/v2.1/csprd03/xliff-core-v2.1-csprd03.html#itsm_annotatorsRef>
> attribute, while it still fails to resolve with the intended value. This
> can happen if more then one terminology providers were used.
>
>
>
> It seems fine to me ;-)
>
>
>
> Cheers and thanks
>
> dF
>
>
> Dr. David Filip
>
> ===========
>
> OASIS XLIFF OMOS TC Chair
>
> OASIS XLIFF TC Secretary, Editor, Liaison Officer
>
> Spokes Research Fellow
>
> ADAPT Centre
>
> KDEG, Trinity College Dublin
>
> Mobile: +420-777-218-122 <+420%20777%20218%20122>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 12:09 PM, David Filip <
david.filip@adaptcentre.ie>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Yves,
>
>
>
> I created a csprd03 issue from this
>
>
https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-53>
>
>
> The associated thread is
>
>
http://markmail.org/thread/m7izjxihm74dfyge>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> dF
>
>
>
>
> Dr. David Filip
>
> ===========
>
> OASIS XLIFF OMOS TC Chair
>
> OASIS XLIFF TC Secretary, Editor, Liaison Officer
>
> Spokes Research Fellow
>
> ADAPT Centre
>
> KDEG, Trinity College Dublin
>
> Mobile: +420-777-218-122 <+420%20777%20218%20122>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Yves Savourel <
ysavourel@enlaso.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> There is at least one remaining comment in the draft: In section
> “5.9.7.2.3 ITS Terminology Annotation” we have a warning with an inline
> comment: “COMMENT: HARD TO UNDERSTAND THE INTENTION OF THE WARNING, NEEDS
> REWRITING OR SHOULD BE DROPPED.”
>
>
>
> I guess this need to be resolved before csprd04.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> -yves
>
>
>
>
>
> Yves Savourel
> Localization Solutions Architect | ENLASO®
> 4888 Pearl East Circle | Suite 300E | Boulder | Colorado 80301
> t: 303.945.3759 <(303)%20945-3759> | f: 303.516.1701 <(303)%20516-1701>
> An ISO 9001:2015 certified company
>
>
>
> *Confidentiality Notice*
> The information in this transmittal may be privileged and confidential and
> is intended only for the recipient(s) listed above. Any review, use,
> disclosure, distribution or copying of this transmittal, in any form, is
> prohibited except by or on behalf of the intended recipient. If you have
> received this transmittal in error, please notify me immediately by reply
> email and destroy all copies of the transmittal.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>