W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org > July 2014

[Minutes and summary] ITS IG call 2014-07-16

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 20:26:48 +0200
Message-Id: <F2B85775-9550-4315-AECA-C7D2562DAE1E@w3.org>
To: public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org
See
http://www.w3.org/2014/07/16-i18nits-minutes.html
and below as text. Short summary:

- Serge gave extensive feedback (thanks a lot for that!) on 
https://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/Open_Data_Management_for_Public_Automated_Translation_Services
and made related edits
https://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/index.php?title=Open_Data_Management_for_Public_Automated_Translation_Services&diff=1026&oldid=1003
I volunteered to send out the document for further feedback to Mli project people, Serge to reach out to Gala. Thoughts?

- David described the current state of XLIFF 2.0 voting and plans for XLIFF 2.1. For the latter ITS2 and extended validation support are core work items. Serge said hell make a public announcement about these developments.

- David reported on FEISGILTT event planning.

Next meeting: Id propose after the summer break - 27. August. We can continue with everything else via mail. If you want to have a call before let me know.

- Felix


   [1]W3C

      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -

                                 ITS IG

16 Jul 2014

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2014Jul/0013.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2014/07/16-i18nits-irc

Attendees

   Present
          fsasaki, philr, serge, dF, jirka

   Regrets
          dave, tatiana, olaf-michael, cLieske

   Chair
          felix

   Scribe
          fsasaki

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]roll call
         2. [6]feedback on "Open Data Management position
            statement"
         3. [7]XLIFF related points
         4. [8]feisgiltt event
         5. [9]automated translation doc again
         6. [10]aob
     * [11]Summary of Action Items
     __________________________________________________________

roll call

   checking attendance

feedback on "Open Data Management position statement"

   [12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2014
   Jul/0017.html

     [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2014Jul/0017.html

   serge: if there is a public service which will enable content
   to be published automatically, everbody will be affected
   ... we need to provision some hocking points for communities
   that will be engaged
   ... to indicate that they will participate
   ... want to demonstrate that this is relevant to them as well
   ... if you speak to data annotaiton to the public, they will
   say "what?"
   ... definitely LT community will be affected

   <dF> will join audio shortly

   serge: language service community will also be affected
   ... e.g. preparing data, testing, other stuff
   ... so we need to mention them
   ... so some simple language that makes that clear
   ... then about providing feedback: nobody will do that blindly
   ... in the future that will be avail. for automatically
   translated data too
   ... it has to be in the data itself - the feedback
   ... in industry sector there is much talking about European
   language cloud
   ... but there is no detailed info about this
   ... but if we use the token, people will find the document
   ... so it is an important keyword to place
   ... this is a very important document, I like it
   ... it is laying out good foundation for public services and
   automated translation
   ... but it is important to lay place for future engagement of
   other stakeholders
   ... now to B: quality measurement
   ... I don't see it practical to blindly publish material
   ... to some extend it has be manual, to some extend automatic
   ... things have to be in the data, that is the concept
   ... that is why I believe that ITS LQI is important here

   felix mentioning linked data represention of ITS and MQM
   (ongoing) as a nice way to move quality aspect in data world
   forward

   serge: mentioning ITS and RDF would be appropriate here I think
   ... about point 1: previous draft had a question "what is
   standards?"
   ... one should mention ITS and RDF, and the standards bodies
   that are concerned with those
   ... no two: reference model graphics: it has QA component
   ... but I don't think it is an industry term
   ... the term encompasses severa items - strictly speaking it is
   a standards components box
   ... before MQM and DQF and the QTLP project, there was an
   incorrect notion
   ... if you improve the process the quality will improve by
   itself
   ... that is a problem of many quality related standards
   ... that is why something like MQM is rquired: you need to be
   able to build the metrics
   ... many companies provide LQ assurance as a separate process
   step
   ... clearly this is a building block
   ... also required for full automatic translation
   ... and that is why qtlp started and mqm came up
   ... LQA is an industry term, one should refer to that

   now number 3:

   scribe: we need to change data mgmt requirement 5 to m
   (mandatory)
   ... without a feedback channel it will not be possible to
   improve machine translation
   ... it should not be optional, but mandatory
   ... like google, which allows you to edit mt text
   ... point 4:
   ... proposal to improve requirement 5
   ... point 5:
   ... one should mention here MQM
   ... with all these changes this document will be more complete
   ... about point C:
   ... we have a certain lack of stakeholders for the doc
   ... need to do certain outreach that will engage relevant
   stakeholders
   ... right now list of contributors is quite narrow
   ... one of the recent calls there was a question: why was there
   no call for comment to industry?
   ... with this changes the document is in a good shape to give
   feedback to wider industry
   ... one should initiate wider feedback

   discussion on how to move the docuemnt forward - felix saying
   that there is time for that, no need to hurry, and now we can
   reach out to outside telling: give your input

   serge: I would reach out to others and say: this is our current
   state
   ... one should contact projects and say: please provide input

   felix: happy to send out in MLI for feedback

   <scribe> ACTION: felix to draft outreach mail for doc for
   others to re-use [recorded in
   [13]http://www.w3.org/2014/07/16-i18nits-minutes.html#action01]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-49 - Draft outreach mail for doc for
   others to re-use [on Felix Sasaki - due 2014-07-23].

   serge: we can solicit feedback from gala, we have a huge list
   of contacts

   <scribe> ACTION: serge to draft outreach mail for doc for
   others to re-use [recorded in
   [14]http://www.w3.org/2014/07/16-i18nits-minutes.html#action02]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-50 - Draft outreach mail for doc for
   others to re-use [on Serge Gladkoff - due 2014-07-23].

   close action-49

   <trackbot> Closed action-49.

   david: nothing I disagree with, looking into it now
   ... many aspects are preparatory, but that is important
   ... standard emphasis, interchange capabilities

XLIFF related points

   david: XLIFF 2.0 majority vote passed yesterday
   ... that means: within a week OASIS membership vote will start
   ... that is like: after WG makes something final it goes to AC
   vote
   ... so all OASIS members will vote
   ... there are currently 283 members
   ... only contributors or sponsors can vote
   ... we need to get at least 43 votes to get OASIS standard
   label
   ... it is not so easy
   ... out of 283 I know only 20 are on the TC
   ... we really need to get some help to reach out to primary
   representatives to get positive votes
   ... I have a list of OASIS members who are also in W3C, 32
   orgs. So AC rep in W3C may be the same like OASIS
   ... I think it would help to make AC reps aware of this
   development

   felix: focus on technical aspect of relation between XLIFF2 and
   ITS2, not so much relation between standards bodies

   david: like tech approach here
   ... explain that bitext is needed in multilingual
   transformation, here is the relationship
   ... it solves the problem, preserve the metadata

   discussion on OASIS support and W3C support rules

   jirka: for docbook it was easy

   david: we do it the way you did: finding contact owners for
   companies
   ... need to freeze wiki mapping as a snapshot
   ... stop in the ITS IG and make this an XLIFF 2.1 feature

   serge: what stage is xliff 2.1 in?

   david: TC decided to work on it
   ... there is informal consensus on the features that should be
   in:
   ... the oasis admin is aware that we are working on it
   ... the timeline is: at feistiltt people agreed on releasing
   minor version yearly
   ... for 2.1 there should be deadline for reference
   implementations in November
   ... january - may should be spent on admin steps
   ... tech stuff should be achieved betwee the summer and
   November
   ... feature set is narrow
   ... but big features. two major features:
   ... offical ITS support
   ... a lot of ITS features are possible in xliff as extentions
   ... but a module is a better status for the feature
   ... the ITS support should become and official part of the spec
   ... ITS may be several modules to avoid interdepencies
   ... the other feature is advanced validation support
   ... that is also why felix joined the TC

   (discussion on validation topic in oasis)

   serge: happy to create news item for the industry about this

   david: great
   ... it is not yet recorded as an offical feature yet because of
   summer vacations etc.

   serge: will create a blurb from the minutes, for you to approve

   david: would be great to make some fuzz about XLIFF 2.0
   becoming a standard
   ... CNGL will make a press release about that

   serge: I'll do that too

   david: you can announce xliff as a standard, saying that the
   final vote is happening these dates
   ... I will forward the notification to this group so that you
   know that it is official

feisgiltt event

   david: will have a feisgiltt event in vancouver
   ... it overlaps with w3c tpac unfortunately but it is important
   to raise standards awareness in loc community
   ... focus will be on TBX/RDF, ITS mapping etc. - an outreach
   effort, bring the news to north america
   ... if you have any input to call for paper, let me know
   ... we are using same PC that we had for Dublin feisgiltt

   <philr> Apologies, I have to leave for another meeting.

automated translation doc again

   serge: added ITS/RDF to
   [15]https://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/Open_Data_Managem
   ent_for_Public_Automated_Translation_Services#Terminology ,
   need some links

     [15] https://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/Open_Data_Management_for_Public_Automated_Translation_Services#Terminology

   felix: I'll add the links

   <dF>
   [16]https://www.oasis-open.org/news/announcements/60-day-public
   -review-for-xliff-version-2-0-candidate-oasis-standard-ends-jul
   y-5th

     [16] https://www.oasis-open.org/news/announcements/60-day-public-review-for-xliff-version-2-0-candidate-oasis-standard-ends-july-5th

aob

   adjourned

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: felix to draft outreach mail for doc for others
   to re-use [recorded in
   [17]http://www.w3.org/2014/07/16-i18nits-minutes.html#action01]
   [NEW] ACTION: serge to draft outreach mail for doc for others
   to re-use [recorded in
   [18]http://www.w3.org/2014/07/16-i18nits-minutes.html#action02]

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [19]scribe.perl version
    1.138 ([20]CVS log)
    $Date: 2014-07-16 14:21:18 $
     __________________________________________________________

     [19] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [20] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

   [Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11
Check for newer version at [21]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/
scribe/

     [21] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/features/feature/
Succeeded: s/why/also why/
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: fsasaki
Inferring Scribes: fsasaki
Present: fsasaki philr serge dF jirka
Regrets: dave tatiana olaf-michael cLieske
Agenda: [22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2014J
ul/0013.html
Got date from IRC log name: 16 Jul 2014
Guessing minutes URL: [23]http://www.w3.org/2014/07/16-i18nits-minutes.h
tml
People with action items: felix serge

     [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2014Jul/0013.html
     [23] http://www.w3.org/2014/07/16-i18nits-minutes.html


   [End of [24]scribe.perl diagnostic output]

     [24] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2014 18:27:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:11:31 UTC