Re: Feedback on Open Data Management for Public Automated Translation Services

Thanks, Felix.
As already mentioned in my reply to Dave, this discussion is in the 
context of the linport project. Of course, you are right when looking at 
a reqs document with CEF specs... ;-)
All the best,
Jörg

Am 23.06.2014 16:22, schrieb Felix Sasaki:
> Hi Arle, Jörg and all,
>
> thanks a lot for forwarding this. Apologies to Jörg that the current
> phone slot won’t work for you and thanks for the effort to write things
> done in mail. I would hope that we keep the focus narrow. This is
> because of the specific relation to CEF, but also because of similar
> experiences in writing such documents I made in similar efforts: for
> guiding implementers and procurement (like CEF), the more specific we
> are the better. But this is my personal opinion and this document and
> the discussion are no formal standardization exercise, so any feedback
> from you Jörg or others is more than welcome.
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>
> Am 18.06.2014 um 17:02 schrieb Arle Lommel <arle.lommel@gmail.com
> <mailto:arle.lommel@gmail.com>>:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I forwarded the link to the document
>> (https://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/Open_Data_Management_for_Public_Automated_Translation_Services)
>> to a couple of the core Linport people since Linport would fit into
>> this picture. I got the following back from Jörg Schütz, which he
>> asked me to forward on.
>>
>>     Hi Arle,
>>
>>     Thanks for providing this link. I was already thinking about how
>>     this initiative could contribute to the overall "Linport and
>>     related" discussions, and what kind of exchange could and should
>>     be possible.
>>
>>     My main concern with the W3C initiative, and the requirements
>>     document in particular, is that it is very much machine
>>     translation focused (even with a strong bias to SMT) which is
>>     certainly only one particular aspect within our current API (here,
>>     I use API is a generic metaphor for service interfaces)
>>     considerations.
>>
>>     In my view, "Public Automated Translation Services" can be more
>>     than just SMT and their associated data management (languages,
>>     lifecycles, processes, etc.) facilities. Since I'm not sure if
>>     this focus is because of the relation to CEF, but looking only at
>>     an MT infrastructure when talking about automated translation
>>     services would be to shortsighted (here I use "automated" in terms
>>     of processes). Think about, for example, terminology support to
>>     guide a particular translation request, or the assessment of a
>>     translation source content or a translation result for pre- and
>>     post-editing purposes, and you are confronted with data and
>>     interoperability challenges.
>>
>>     So, in priciple, the initiative might consider an overall
>>     framework for translations, and this then would directly lead to
>>     the Linport discussions. Obviously, all aspects mentioned in the
>>     document so far can be extended to a general framework for public
>>     translation services.
>>
>>     I would have liked very much to share my view in today's W3C
>>     online meeting but unfortunately 14:00 CEST is not a good time for
>>     me during an ordinary workday... Nevertheless, you may forward
>>     these lines to the W3C group working on the requirements document,
>>     and I would be happy to further explain my view.
>>
>>     Thanks again, and all the best,
>>
>>     Jörg
>>
>> I think Jörg’s comments point out that we should be clearer (both
>> internally and publicly) about the particular motivation for this
>> document and consider whether we want to talk in terms of a broader
>> infrastructure/ecosystem than just SMT. Since the CEF focus is
>> MT-centric, the present document reflects that, and maybe we want to
>> keep that particular focus, but we might also profitably discuss
>> whether it could be broadened a bit as well.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> -Arle

Received on Friday, 27 June 2014 14:25:20 UTC