- From: Arle Lommel <arle.lommel@dfki.de>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 21:19:57 +0100
- To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Cc: joerg@bioloom.de, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, Arle Lommel <arle.lommel@dfki.de>, public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org, kim_harris@textform.com, Hans Uszkoreit <uszkoreit@dfki.de>, Aljoscha Burchardt <aljoscha.burchardt@dfki.de>
Hi all, Regarding Felix's issues #1 (expressivity) and #3 (mapping), see below: #1 (EXPRESSIVITY) The primary loss in going from MQM to ITS is simply that there is much more (potential) granularity in MQM than in ITS and that there are a number of issue types in MQM with no correlate in ITS. For example, the "Verity" category in MQM deals with how well information in a text corresponds with the world of the text. For example, if a localized text mentions that a ground wire will be bare copper but in the target locale is is actually a blue insulated wire, this is a verity error, even if the translation says "bare copper" (in the target language) and is otherwise accurate. There are a number of things like this that map to "other" in ITS 2.0. However, it should be noted that nobody is expected to use the full MQM issue-type list and most MQM implementations would use a MUCH smaller subset, so for any given MQM implementation, the mapping is likely to be pretty simple/straight-forward. #3 (MAPPING) I've updated the mapping table: http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/Tool_specific_mappings#Mappings_for_Localization_Quality_Issue_Types It's actually not too bad now and could easily be automated (going from MQM to ITS) and I have made a recommended default reverse (ITS to MQM mapping). Some of the MQM complexity is hidden in the mapping because I hid some of the granularity under "[+]" symbols. -Arle
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2013 07:00:20 UTC