- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:41:19 +0100
- To: joerg@bioloom.de
- CC: public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
Am 14.12.12 10:15, schrieb Jörg Schütz: > Hi Felix, > > Looks good to me, except in the notes column we should replace "This > category has ..." with "This value has ...". There are also some few > other notes (i.e. locale-violation, internationalization, and other) > with "category" that need to be streamlined as well. Thanks for checking, Jörg. I tried to use "value" consistently and indicated that in the change log, so that we don't have to create a separate issue for this. Best, Felix > > Cheers -- Jörg > > On Dec 13, 2012 at 16:13 (UTC+1), Felix Sasaki wrote: >> Hi Jörg, all, >> >> I tried to implement this in the draft, see >> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#lqissue-typevalues >> >> >> >> If there is no disagreement I would close the issue on the monday call. >> >> Best, >> >> Felix >> >> Am 12.12.12 14:47, schrieb Jörg Schütz: >>> Hi Arle, >>> >>> Some corrections and amendments for #1: >>> >>> (1) A text is defective in ways the defy categorization, ... => A text >>> is defective in ways to defy categorization, ... >>> >>> (2) (e.g., a translation shows severe grammatical defects and appears >>> unrelated to the source material) => (e.g., a translation shows an >>> unintelligible result and/or appears unrelated to the source material) >>> >>> Cheers -- Jörg >>> >>> On Dec 12, 2012 at 09:21 (UTC+1), Arle Lommel wrote: >>>> If we take this approach, here is a pass at the information needed for >>>> #1 with changes in *red bold* >>>> >>>> *Value* >>>> >>>> uncategorized >>>> >>>> *Description* >>>> >>>> The issue *either *has not been categorized *or cannot be >>>> categorized* >>>> >>>> *Example* >>>> >>>> * A new version of a tool returns information on an issue that >>>> has not >>>> been previously checked and that is not yet classified. >>>> * *A text is defective in ways the defy categorization, such as the >>>> appearance of nonsense garbled text of unknown origin (e.g., a >>>> translation shows severe grammatical defects and appears unrelated >>>> to the source material)* >>>> >>>> *Scope* >>>> >>>> S or T >>>> >>>> *Notes* >>>> >>>> This category has two *the following* uses: >>>> >>>> * A tool can use it to pass through quality data from another >>>> tool >>>> in cases where the issues from the other tool are not >>>> classified >>>> (for example, a localization quality assurance tool interfaces >>>> with a third-party grammar checker). >>>> * A tool's issues are not yet assigned to categories, and, until >>>> an updated assignment is made, they may be >>>> listed asuncategorized. In this case it is recommended that >>>> issues be assigned to appropriate categories as soon as >>>> possible >>>> since uncategorized does not foster interoperability. >>>> * *Uncategorized can be used where a portion of text is >>>> defective >>>> in a way that defies assignment to a category in either the >>>> originating system or in any other ITS localization quality >>>> markup to indicate that it is uncategorizable.* >>>> >>>> #2 would come along next year. >>>> >>>> #3 probably wouldn't need much update at this point since their is >>>> only >>>> a slight expansion of meaning in this category. However, when QTLP's >>>> tool develops I could add it in. This would again be next year. >>>> >>>> My guess, by the way, is that this can be seen as clarification of >>>> usage, rather than a substantive change, but we can see what others >>>> think… >>>> >>>> -Arle >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2012 Dec 12, at 06:17 , Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org >>>> <mailto:fsasaki@w3.org>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thank you, Jörg. Going the "stability path" seems also reasonable >>>>> given this positive development >>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Dec/0061.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So the actions needed would be >>>>> >>>>> 1) clarification of "uncategorized" >>>>> 2) having an example that demonstrates the usage in the MT scenario - >>>>> not necessarily in the spec, but as part of best practices and to see >>>>> the annotation the qt launchpad project would produce >>>>> 3) update >>>>> http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/Tool_specific_mappings#Mappings_for_Localization_Quality_Issue_Type >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.w3.org/International/its/ig/its20-tool-specific-mappings.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Arle, would that work for you? If yes, when could you do 1-3? >>>>> >>>>> With regards to Phil's mail at >>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2012Dec/0010.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I see this as a different topic, but would prefer not to add >>>>> values or >>>>> attributes at this time, like with issue-60. Phil, if you still need >>>>> this please create a seperate comment. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Felix >>>>> >>>>> Am 11.12.12 20:57, schrieb Jörg Schütz: >>>>>> That's a very good solution to avoid a possible type value tsunami >>>>>> and additional LC (if this is really the case with such an >>>>>> addition). >>>>>> >>>>>> By the way, your "1862" example is a candidate for the >>>>>> "mistranslation" type. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers -- Jörg >>>>>> >>>>>> On Dec 11, 2012 at 18:31 (UTC+1), Arle Lommel wrote: >>>>>>> The other alternative is that we expand the semantics of >>>>>>> "uncategorized" >>>>>>> slightly to allow for a more naturalistic interpretation such >>>>>>> that it >>>>>>> doesn't mean "we haven't categorized it" to "we haven't or can't >>>>>>> categorize it". That would be satisfactory as well, I think, and >>>>>>> less of >>>>>>> a change. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Arle >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2012 Dec 11, at 18:27 , Arle Lommel <arle.lommel@dfki.de >>>>>>> <mailto:arle.lommel@dfki.de>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jörg is correct here that nothing has this already. This is really >>>>>>>> looking forward to QT Launchpad work. If saying "nobody has >>>>>>>> implemented this so far" disqualifies it, then we would be >>>>>>>> forced to >>>>>>>> use "uncategorized" and add some custom markup. That wouldn't >>>>>>>> be the >>>>>>>> end of the world for us, but it would be nice to have. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> However, see my last mail about how I see this as different. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (I can say, up front, that if this isn't accepted I won't hold >>>>>>>> anything up over it, so the moment this causes real problems, >>>>>>>> we can >>>>>>>> drop it.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Arle >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2012 Dec 11, at 18:15 , Jörg Schütz <joerg@bioloom.de >>>>>>>> <mailto:joerg@bioloom.de>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Felix, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Since an additional value doesn't actually harm the type list >>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>> certainly can be seen as open ended (but still backward >>>>>>>>> compatible), >>>>>>>>> the need for a subsequent LC is questionable. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, the proposed quality type value "unintelligible" >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> the described output case might be controversial because it does >>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>> indicate/reflect a quality consideration as the other types in >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> list do. The QT Launchpad project should therefore consider to >>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>> "uncategorized" because this value might indicate the "trashy" >>>>>>>>> quality. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And TMK, I'm not aware of any language proofing technology that >>>>>>>>> uses >>>>>>>>> "unintelligible" has a quality value. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers -- Jörg >
Received on Friday, 14 December 2012 09:41:44 UTC