W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org > December 2012

Re: issue-60 (Re: Comment on ITS 2.0 specification WD)

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:41:19 +0100
Message-ID: <50CAF43F.3020707@w3.org>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 14 December 2012 09:41:45 GMT