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: Dr. David Filip <David.Filip@ul.ie>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:56:54 +0000
Message-ID: <CANw5LKk1TyoC_RO70mfvi4Yf0ov73_38V_16i+BzNJNjkLsyvw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
OK with me, if no objections come.. I just won't make any changes to
the comments disposition until the co-editor action is performed. I
will just record the last call for consensus..
Rgds
dF

Dr. David Filip
=======================
LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS
University of Limerick, Ireland
telephone: +353-6120-2781
cellphone: +353-86-0222-158
facsimile: +353-6120-2734
mailto: david.filip@ul.ie


On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:
> Hi Phil again,
>
> Am 21.02.13 07:50, schrieb Phil Ritchie:
>
>> Thanks for your support Yves.
>>
>> I actually met with McAfee yesterday where I talked through our poster
>> [ and unofficially practiced my presentation ;-) ] and whilst I cannot say
>> they will be an implementer in the short term we did discuss real workflow
>> scenarios where my requested attribute value would be used.
>>
>> I have met all of the formal requirements, it's certainly less work than
>> some of the other refactoring and no-one has raised any objections so can
>> we please just accept it at this stage?
>
>
> Just to be explicit and for the record in this thread too: fine by me. Let's
> have one more call about this, and if nobody disagrees, an action item for a
> co-editor to make the edit in the spec.
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>
>
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>>
>> On 20 Feb 2013, at 23:25, "Yves Savourel" <ysavourel@enlaso.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi David, Phil, all,
>>>
>>> To be honest I'm not sure why adding this item in the list of values for
>>
>> issue type would be a big problem.
>>>
>>> We are making much more demanding changes to the specifications in other
>>
>> places.
>>>
>>> Phil noted 2 possible users for the values, an when you look at
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/International/its/ig/its20-tool-specific-mappings.html
>> (which lists the origin of the current type values), you can see several
>> values that have only one declared 'user'.
>>>
>>> I think that value could be useful (as long as its difference with the
>>
>> Localization Quality Rating is well explained).
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> -yves
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Dr. David Filip [mailto:David.Filip@ul.ie]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 6:55 AM
>>> To: Phil Ritchie
>>> Cc: Dave Lewis; public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
>>> Subject: Re: issue-63 (Re: Comment on ITS 2.0 specification WD -
>>
>> "conformance" Issue Type)
>>>
>>> Phil, trying to see if this has moved. There has been no traffic on this
>>
>> one as of Feb 5 and the meeting of Feb 6 seems only to have restated that
>> the category would be produced and consumed between Digital Linguistics
>> and
>> Vistatec.
>>>
>>> While I am aware that this would formally provide two implementers, my
>>
>> impression is that this new value has not had sufficient traction.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts, comments?
>>> Thanks
>>> dF
>>>
>>> Dr. David Filip
>>> =======================
>>> LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS
>>> University of Limerick, Ireland
>>> telephone: +353-6120-2781
>>> cellphone: +353-86-0222-158
>>> facsimile: +353-6120-2734
>>> mailto: david.filip@ul.ie
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Phil Ritchie <philr@vistatec.ie> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>>> Digital Linguistics will implement as "producer" and VistaTEC will
>>>> implement as "consumer".
>>>>
>>>> Phil.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From:        Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
>>>> To:        public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org,
>>>> Date:        03/02/2013 19:59
>>>> Subject:        Re: issue-63 (Re: Comment on ITS 2.0 specification WD -
>>>> "conformance"   Issue  Type)
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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).
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> ************************************************************
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ************************************************************
>>>> 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
>>>> ************************************************************
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ************************************************************
>>>> 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
>>>> ************************************************************
>>
>>
>> ************************************************************
>> 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 Friday, 22 February 2013 09:58:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 February 2013 09:58:04 GMT