action item id=3946 ========== Agenda: Discuss addressing and fragid features Review editoriual readiness Adjourn by 1300 UTC ========== Minutes: [doesn’t count towards voter eligibility] Attendance [not roll call]: Michal, Simon, Marko, John, dF Slides on fragment exchange Michal to add entry as optional root in XML Fix RDB diagram in the same sense Say in the core preamble how data can be exchanged using the model Complete and fragment scenarios Resource or entry necessary as wrapper, other data can be omitted Actions Michal to add optional ids to human readable objects in core and modules Adding uniqueness scopes The data type of ids is not specified except that it has to serve as a unique identifier in the given serialization dF to clean up Conformance, delete privacy and security appendix, clean up bibliography Adjourned 1229 UTC ========== Attendance:
09-04-2023 | 11:00 - 12:00 UTC
Micah, Thomas Wackier/Yamagata, Daniel DejaVu, Derek Coffey, Kronos/Kiril [Peter also mentioned Jörg Schütz who is on ITS PC and will be around] AI dF: Reaching out to European toolmakers AI Bryan to reach out to Ingo AI dF: Oracle, Patrik Mazánek AI Peter: Paul Filkin/SDL re general attitude, David Pooley 2) ISO Peter: Not in rush PAS seems almost an emergency solution DIS Waiting to hear from Jamie 3) AOB Joachim: regular experssions issue at ISG LIS, they want to collaborate dF: the same issue is not only on XLIFF but also in ITS 2.0 last call Bryan: DITA adoption, module for DITA roundtrip dF: the options according to MLW-LT are: XML schema, lowest common denominator, We should avoid middleware translator tools, a mediator langauge like "esperanto" ========== Attendance: Meeting Statistics Quorum rule 0% of voting members Achieved quorum yes Individual Attendance Contributing Members: 5 of 8 (62%) Voting Members: 5 of 5 (100%) (used for quorum calculation) Company Attendance Contributing Companies: 5 of 6 (83%) Voting Companies: 5 of 5 (100%)
01-15-2013 | 17:00 - 18:00 WET
We don't want to complicate the top level object URI is flexible and can be used for semantic versioning etc. while Title should be kept human readable and thus optional (not critical for exchange) Discussion: WRT top level URI use: Consider use of the DICT protocol for exchange and URIs?
08-07-2023 | 10:30 - 12:30 UTC
Options: 1) take ctr as is and combine it with prov records like <ctr:revision ctr:author=”uri-prov-record” itsm:prov=”yes”> 2) like 1), plus allow ctr inline elements 3) re-design of ctr to allow usage of ITS provenance and more Reference versus everything in author: ctr:author=”ryan-human-author:df-human-author”
06-01-2015 | 09:00 - 17:15 WET
Prefixing of module objects with " " does not have syntactic significance, it's only for human readability
09-25-2018 | 17:00 - 18:00 WET
Semantic information about what the placeholder means – beyond human readable. So you can correlate with translation examples
03-06-2018 | 11:00 - 12:00 ET
Material Michal prepared report on subsensing in dictionaries https://markmail.org/thread/fz46xz362r5n2fer [mailing list discussion] was uploaded by David to the repository for future reference https://markmail.org/thread/fz46xz362r5n2fer [mailing list discussion] serving as a proposal for remodeling has the benefit of flattening senses rather than hierarchical sub-senses interoperable by machines would not be losing any information available in the dictionaries studied John: DWDS example is odd – Michal agrees there should not be separate entries David: is relation-based subsensing recursion, to avoid having an element contain itself Michal: avoid illogical recursion by allowing subsensing David: could have two different entries, one having Ilan: when ready, expand with regard to nested entries and MWEs (as subsenses) Three main patterns: senses inside senses, the child sense is MWE, entry inside entry (incl homographs) take care of all of them by flattening David: should decide who is primary user – machine or human Miloš: homographs need not be indicated explicitly – no clear distinction of homonymy and polysemy – lexicographer may decide either way, the machine can deal with either Simon: possible to establish relation between the two Miloš: Can infer homographs from similar spelling Simon: changing the world of lexicography from book-based logic, so keep the possibility of labeling relations – can label two homonym entries as homonymic Michal: if we follow the same strategy, we become truly members of the digital era Michal will write similar proposal including homographs/homonyms, nesting, MWEs David: we need to be language-agnostic in this sense MWE – making it relational Simon: underdefined, not typically headwords, should not be modelled as subsenses David: don’t agree, depends whether has compositional sense or not Simon: agglutinative language has other problem, as could have millions of headwords; we are talking about move from hierarchical book model – whatever one considers as headword, or as something that should be explained with some kind of lexicographic identity, it can be a headword; otherwise it is used as part of the sense David: we need a more comprehensive proposal, include examples and describe mechanics Michal confirms accepting to write wider proposal 3
10-19-2020 | 13:30 - 15:00 WET
Dana asked about Must > requirements; Eliot: issue is processor requirements vs coding (data) requirements (conventions for human > understanding as well as machine interoperability)
01-12-2010 | 08:00 - 09:00 PT
Christian explained that annotation refers to information targeted at human readers, contrasting it to extensibility which he thinks is targeted to processing tools
11-03-2009 | 11:00 - 12:00 ET
EG: No but the purpose of XML is that it is human readable. TB: Being able to parse and validate via the type is very elegant
04-28-2003 | 00:00 - 23:59 ET
OASIS Open400 TradeCenter, Suite 5900Woburn, MA 01801USA
Phone+1 781 425 5073
Get Involved
Join an Open Project
Join a Technical Committee
About UsPrivacy