See also: IRC log
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2014Oct/0032.html
<scribe> scribe: fsasaki
http://www.w3.org/International/its/ig/track/actions/open
http://www.w3.org/International/its/ig/track/actions/open?sort=due
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2014Oct/0006.html
"ITS scope with sm/em"
yves: issue is: in XLIFF you can
markup things with starting and ending empty elements
... these are used as marker
... content is not XML well formed content but between related
elements
... they are related through semantics, not syntax
... they can be converted to mrk
... issue is: in ITS we cannot describe that relation
... e.g. if "sm" has ITS information, the information woud
apply to empty content
... Fredrik and Felix provided ways to solve the problem
... by reducing numbers of sm and em,
... but there would still be some cases
... in case in which things are overlaped
... this cannot resolved with ITS
... this is similar to NIF were we can have overlap as
well
... so ITS cannot handle everything
... we can migate 98% of the case with transformation
david: fundamental issue
... richard / felix sometimes say that ITS is an abstract set
of data categories
... so far tech. has only been defined for XML and HTML
... these have the limitations that Yves described
... I agree that you can define simplification to reduce the
number of spans that will be marked with empty markers, in
XLIFF or other formats
... this does not solve the fundamental issue
... you can clash with structural XLIFF markup and so on
... not quite sure what the value of the exercise is
... of trying to reduce the number of sm / em marked
spans
... if you start in a perfect value html / xml you can add ITS
value
... you can't end up with spans that won't be possible to be
marked in the right way
... don't think that there is a solution
... you cannot enforce wellformed spans
... so all external ITS processors will be at loss
yves: that type of issue applies
only for em / sm that you cannot split into separate mrks
... e.g. for "translate" you can split things up in several
mrks
... the issue is with "terminology" or "text analysis" where
you cannot split up things
david: if the wellformed format has the requirements then we can convert that
yves: this is a problem, not a
major problem. it is a problem on the ITS representaiton.
shoudl not stop us for using sm / em
... not a showstopper for the mapping
david: agre
... it is a limitatino what a generic ITS processor can
do
... another reason for having separate XLIFF namespaces
christian: a few points: first,
general issue of XML contraints
... what is the viewpoint of researchers on the overlap
issue?
... second, we are looking at xliff
... the observation we have may have some impact on the future
version of xliff
... maybe we find that sm / em is not the only approach - again
an insight based on overlap research
... third - being able to cover 98%, like yves said
... we could also say: for certain flavours of XLIFF you are
ok, for others you have certain constraints
... that may call for a special variant of xliff
... e.g. variant X of xliff: OK, variant Y: may have issues
renat: want to add some comments
on overlap aspect
... in xliff 2.0 there will be several modules
... e.g. a specific module for ITS metadata
... is that so?
... then we could resolve the scenario if we split overlapping
pieces of metadata between different instances of target
text
david: useful to look at theoretical options from TEI
[see TEI options here http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/NH.html ]
david: multiple instances was
used in 1.2
... it was abandoned in XLIFF 2.0
... standoff markup is another option
... but also has issues
... agree with Yves, there is no problem on the XLIFF
side
... the problem occurs during conversion to a format that has
wellformedness requirements
... a comment on what christian said about XLIFF
flavours:
... wellformed spans are interconvertable with non-wellformed
spans
... that is true for annotation and quote markers
... there is a way to reduce the number of non wellformed
spans
... you could define types of content that works with the
reduction and overs that does not
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2014Oct/0033.html
felix: next step would be to do some tests with the conversion, see yves' mail
<scribe> ACTION: felix to work on overlap example and to do conversion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/20-i18nits-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-53 - Work on overlap example and to do conversion [on Felix Sasaki - due 2014-10-27].
yves: things to be done:
... coming up wtih rules for processing the mapping
... using also an ITS processor
... output would be similar to the test output we
generate
... but we need also to come up to process the file with an
XLIFF processor
... but I don't have a format for that
yves: for XLIFF output,
testing:
... every single element for which we can apply ITS
... all ements have IDs
... so we can generate an XLIFF location of the node
... instead of using XPath, using the XLIFF IDs
... most of the xliff processors should be able to process
that
felix: would one need to take the scope of the ID into account?
yves: good point
... technically you are testing only if the value of the ITS
information is correct
... applying the scope is only an XLIFF problem
... the tests for the ITS module don't need to test the
scope
david: still the same issue
... the scope of the IDs can be non-wellformed
<scribe> ACTION: yves to try to come up with example of xliff+its test format / output [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/10/20-i18nits-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-54 - Try to come up with example of xliff+its test format / output [on Yves Savourel - due 2014-10-27].
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2014Oct/0000.html
felix: discussion on xliff namespace - semantic of attribute would affect spans
david: would affect also
xliff
... so makes sense to have the namespace xliff hosted
christian: need to be clear what the issues is and to see where we have the issue: in xliff or its or both
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2014Oct/0023.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2014Oct/0024.html
<dF> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/URNsAndRegistries-50.html
yves: processing is fine for ITS
processor, to do extra processing before it processes it
... if it is well defined
... e.g. having an XSLT that does it back and forth
... it is a limitation too because you cannot use an XLIFF file
with an ITS processor
... for me it is something marginal - in most of the cases it
will be with an XLIFF processor, not an ITS processor
felix: agree
david: above links explains
differrent approaches to namespaces in w3c and osasis - w3c
uses http uris, osasis uses urn
... xliff syntax expects urn type uri, not http type of
uri
... another good reason to have oasis hosted namespace
yves: advantage of not using
directly ITS namespace:
... in some cases we will need to add attributes
... e.g. ITS does not define a local "domain"
... you need that at XLIFF
... we have only a global marker in ITS
david: that was the primary reason to use the additional namespace
yves: exactly
... that allows you to put together all attributes in the
mapping
... validation is then easier
... there is one case with pre- and post-processing of the
file
... we don't have a way to map "tools information"
... there is no way to map tools info in XLIFF and map that
into ITS
... which is ok since we have a preprocessing step
idea to have an algorithm and implement that in differnet ways: xslt and others
<dF> I agree that the algorithm should be defined independently
Provenance and Change Track Module
<dF> still will need the xslt example
action-9?
<trackbot> action-9 -- David Lewis to Look at the XLIFF 2.0 change tracking module for provenance -- due 2014-05-30 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/International/its/ig/track/actions/9
<dF> and preferably at least one more
yves: we thought about this before, but did not address this yet
david: not very clear what the relation is
yves: you could end up with conflicts - which one is right?
david: one could use ctr for
historical provenance
... current provenance on core elements should be encoded using
the ITS module
christian: sounds like a new
concept / terminology
... "historical provenance"
... we need to define this properly
david: purpose of change track is to be able to tell who made change
10 november
adjourned
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138 of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: fsasaki Inferring ScribeNick: fsasaki Present: christian yves david renat felix Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2014Oct/0032.html WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Got date from IRC log name: 20 Oct 2014 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/10/20-i18nits-minutes.html People with action items: felix yves[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]