[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff-comment] Re: [xliff] csprd03 - remaining inline comment to resolve
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.
From: David Filip [mailto:email@example.com]
would you please advise an improved wording for the warning?
This annotation can be syntactically in scope of a relevant
It seems fine to me ;-)
Cheers and thanks
Dr. David Filip
OASIS XLIFF OMOS TC Chair
OASIS XLIFF TC Secretary, Editor, Liaison Officer
Spokes Research Fellow
KDEG, Trinity College Dublin
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 12:09 PM, David Filip <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: