Subject: Re: [xliff] 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:david.filip@
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 11:10 AM
To: Yves Savourel <firstname.lastname@example.org>; XLIFF Main List <email@example.com>
Subject: [xliff-comment] Re: [xliff] csprd03 - remaining inline comment to resolve
would you please advise an improved wording for the warning?
This annotation can be syntactically in scope of a relevant
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
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 12:09 PM, David Filip <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
I created a csprd03 issue from this
The associated thread is
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Yves Savourel <email@example.com> wrote:
There is at least one remaining comment in the draft: In section “18.104.22.168.3 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.
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.