W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org > February 2013

Re: issue-63 (Re: Comment on ITS 2.0 specification WD - "conformance" Issue Type)

From: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2013 19:58:37 +0000
Message-ID: <510EC16D.3070802@cs.tcd.ie>
To: public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
Hi Phil,
We need to reach a resolution on ISSUE-63, on the inclusion of the 
suggested conformance type to the values for lqi type.

As discussed on the 7th Jan call 
(http://www.w3.org/2013/01/07-mlw-lt-minutes.html#item04), to advance 
this we need to find another supporter who'd be willing to implement 
this. Did you find anyone else interested in adding this type?

I suggest we review the status of this on this wed (6th Feb) call, but 
if we can find no one else who is interested then we reject this comment.

cheers,
Dave


On 14/12/2012 16:49, Phil Ritchie wrote:
> All
>
> Per sample output:
>
> !DOCTYPE html
> <html>
>         <head>
>         </head>
>         <body>
>       <span its-loc-quality-issues-type="conformance" 
> its-loc-quality-severity="2.45">En outre, vous pouvez sélectionner 
> l'option capture d'écran, ce qui permet de prendre une capture d'écran 
> n'importe où dans Windows et l'insérer dans votre document.</span>
>       <span its-loc-quality-issues-type="conformance" 
> its-loc-quality-severity="1.46">Partage de documents a également été 
> améliorée, avec plusieurs personnes de travailler sur un document en 
> même temps en ligne, même si je n'étais pas en mesure de tester cette 
> fonctionnalité.</span>
>       <span its-loc-quality-issues-type="conformance" 
> its-loc-quality-severity="4.3">À l'instar des autres applications 
> Office 2010, Excel dispose de nouveaux outils pour le partage des 
> données avec d'autres personnes, y compris plusieurs personnes 
> travaillant sur un document à la fois.</span>
>         <body>
> </html>
>
> Existing tools that would utilise the the error types are Review 
> Sentinel published by Digital Linguistics 
> (http://www.digitallinguistics.com 
> <http://www.digitallinguistics.com/>). Implementation could be done by 
> late February 2013. Also, the VistaTEC Reviewer's Workbench as part of 
> our deliverables. Some implementation dependency upon mapping in Xliff.
>
> Phil.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
> To: Phil Ritchie <philr@vistatec.ie>,
> Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
> Date: 14/12/2012 09:46
> Subject: issue-63 (Re: Comment on ITS 2.0 specification WD - 
> "conformance"  Issue Type)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Thanks, Phil. This is now issue-63. When we discuss this we need to 
> take the "stability aspect"_
> __http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2012Dec/0020.html_
> and the "existing tools" aspect_
> __http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2012Dec/0004.html_
> See in the latter mail the part
> "the other types where based on what existing tools or  standards 
> initiatives produce. "
>
> Can you provide some input on that part?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Felix
>
> Am 14.12.12 08:27, schrieb Phil Ritchie:
> I would like to propose the addition of "conformance" to Appendix C 
> (Values for the Localization Quality Issue Type).
>
> The values in the appendix cover specific and discrete classes of 
> error (putting "other" and "unintelligible" to one side). When you 
> start to apply new text classification based quality checking methods 
> to text several error classes may combine in subtle ways to produce a 
> measure of quality that is "aggregate" across error types but 
> none-the-less accurately indicative that something is wrong. For 
> example, a target sentence may be deemed to have poor conformance when 
> measured against a corpus of domain relevant reference translations. A 
> score would reflect this poor conformance but the underlying errors 
> within the sentence could be a mixture of grammar, spelling, style 
> and/or terminology. In such instances you may not need to explicitly 
> enumerate all of the combining errors and the extent of their 
> contribution to the score, but just classify it under and umbrella 
> term of "conformance".
>
> The proposed information for the "conformance" value would be as follows:
>
> *Value*
>
> conformance
>
> *Description*
>
> The content is deemed to have a level of conformance to a reference 
> corpus. Reflects the degree to which the text conforms to a reference 
> corpus given an algorithm which combines several classes of error type 
> to produce an aggregate rating. Higher values reflect poorer conformance.
>
> *Example*
>
> "The harbour connected which to printer is busy or configared not 
> properly." In a system which uses classification techniques this would 
> be deemed to have poor conformance. The poor conformance is a function 
> of the combined incorrect terminology, wrong spelling and bad grammar.
>
> *Scope*
>
> S or T
>
> *Notes*
>
> Reflects the degree to which the text conforms to a reference corpus 
> given an algorithm which combines several classes of error type to 
> produce an aggregate rating. Higher values reflect poorer conformance.
>
> Phil Ritchie
>
>
> ************************************************************
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
> the sender immediately by e-mail.
>
> _www.vistatec.com_ <http://www.vistatec.com/>
> ************************************************************
>
>
> ************************************************************
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
> the sender immediately by e-mail.
>
> www.vistatec.com
> ************************************************************
>
Received on Sunday, 3 February 2013 19:59:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 3 February 2013 19:59:05 GMT