RE: Solution via standoff markup ? (Re: Markup for quality)

Hum. it's basically duplicating the info.

But how do you know two spans with that info need to be merged? Nothing currently prevent the re-use of reference IDs if the issue
is the same. So how do we distinguish the two cases?

 

Overall that solution feels like a hack, compare to have two empty elements. I understand that introducing 2 empty elements is not
really possible because of the timeline, but aren't we introducing a bad way to do one thing just because of a deadline? In 5 years
from now that may look like a bad idea.

 

Just thinking aloud

-ys

 

 

From: Aljoscha Burchardt [mailto:aljoscha.burchardt@dfki.de] 
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 9:48 AM
To: Felix Sasaki
Cc: Arle Lommel; public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org; kim_harris@textform.com; Hans Uszkoreit
Subject: Re: Solution via standoff markup ? (Re: Markup for quality)

 

Hi Felix,

 

this sounds good. Let's see whether Arle sees any issues.

 

Best,

Al

 

On 16.06.2013, at 20:50, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:





Hi Arle, all,

I have given this another thought, and maybe ITS 2.0 already has the solution to the overlap problem.

This is what you proposed for mqm:

<p>Fifteen <mqm-startIssue type="markup, misplaced" id="1" /><em>relays <mqm-startIssue type="agreement" id ="2"
/>is</em><mqm-endIssue id="1" /> involved</mqm-endIssue id="2" /> in the operation.</p>

Now, in ITS 2.0 we have standoff markup. So far we haven't used it for representing overlap, but it seems to be straightforward:

<p>Fifteen <span its-loc-quality-issues-ref="#lqi1"><em>relays <span its-loc-quality-issues-ref="#lqi2">is</span></em></span><span
its-loc-quality-issues-ref="#lqi2"> involved</span> in the operation.</p>

Here are the targets of the its-loc-quality-issues-ref attributes:

<its:locQualityIssues xml:id="lqi1" xmlns:its= <http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its> "http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its">
        <its:locQualityIssue itsx:mqmType="markup, misplaced"/>
</its:locQualityIssues>

<its:locQualityIssues xml:id="lqi2" xmlns:its= <http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its> "http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its">
        <its:locQualityIssue itsx:mqmType="agreement"/>
</its:locQualityIssues>

A query via e.g. XPath concatenating all content that has the standoff markup with xml:id="lq1" will give you this content (markup
stripped out)
"relays is "
For xml:id="lq2" you get this
"is involved"
And that is what you want, no?

We don't say what an ITS 2.0 application should do with identical "its-loc-quality-issues-ref" values. Concatenating them like above
seems like a reasonable interpretation for MQM. Thoughts?

Also, would you be availalbe to dial in for the f2f Monday afternoon or Tuesday afternoon to move this forward?

Best,

Felix

Am 10.06.13 11:26, schrieb Arle Lommel:

Hi all, 

 

One of the issues Felix and I discussed for improving compatibility between Mutlidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) (the QTLaunchPad
quality system originally derived from ITS 2.0) and ITS 2.0 is the following:

 

We need a way to mark up overlapping spans. For example, if you have the following HTML5 segment:

 

<p>Fifteen <em>relays is</em> involved in the operation.</p>

 

Which should be

 

<p><em>Fifteen relays</em> are involved in the operation.</p>

 

You have two issues: 

 

*	The markup is misplaced (ITS 2.0 markup and MQM markup, misplaced, which is a subtype of markup)
*	There is an agreement error (ITS 2.0 grammar and MQM agreement, which is a subtype of grammar)

 

The mapping from MQM to ITS 2.0 is clear here, but we need a way to mark up the overlapping spans. So far we have internally used
something like this:

 

<p>Fifteen <mqm-startIssue type="markup, misplaced" id="1" /><em>relays <mqm-startIssue type="agreement" id ="2"
/>is</em><mqm-endIssue id="1" /> involved</mqm-endIssue id="2" /> in the operation.</p>

 

We want a good path to interoperability with ITS. So we need a way to put the following information in the document on overlapping
spans using local markup:

 

its-loc-quality-issue-type="grammar" itsx-mqm-issue-type="agreement" its-loc-quality-comment="should be &quot;relays are&quot;"
(etc.)

 

Any suggestions for how to handle this use case? We want to make it as easy as possible to use MQM and ITS together, where MQM
provides mechanisms for greater granularity while still retaining compatibility with ITS and ITS provides a way to share MQM data at
a common granularity with other systems.

 

Right now we are working to ensure that ITS 2.0 will be fully conformant to MQM (with a few simple mappings for things like issue
type names) and that MQM will have a clean mapping to ITS 2.0. (Note as well that MQM will provide ways to define quality profiles
and handle some things not covered by ITS, like sharing scoring methods, possible data category selections, etc., so MQM adds
significant capability to ITS 2.0 and isn't just an alternative, but rather a larger way of handling some details out of scope for
ITS 2.0.

 

I'll write more up later, but if anyone has good ideas for how to hand the overlapping spans in an ITS 2.0-friendly way, please make
suggestions.

 

Best,

 

Arle