[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: csprd04 - Provenance example and incorrect timeline assumption
In “Example 18. Enriching XLIFF Documents with Provenance Annotations”, the text below the example for the standoff notation says:
“In this example, stacking of the individual records indicates relative time.” And “…as well as the sequence of different translation tools would have been impossible if the annotation was inline only.”
This is incorrect. The Provenance data category does not expects the records to express a specific timeline. The ITS specification says (at https://www.w3.org/TR/its20/#provenance):
“…Third, if provenance information is needed that includes temporal or sequence information about translation processes (e.g. multiple revision cycles) or requires agents that support a wider range of activities, the data category offers a mechanism to refer to external provenance information.”
The section should be revised to reflect that order of record elements does not express a timeline.