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: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 07:58:32 -0700
To: <public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00a501ce110d$15799660$406cc320$@com>
Just a minor note to Phil:

Since this value is about stating there is a "lack of conformance" would it make sense to name it "non-conformance" (or something similar)? rather than "conformance". For example we have "misspelling" rather than "spelling" to indicate a spelling problem.
It would possibly work also better with severity as the "severity for a non-conformance" maybe make more sense than a "severity for a conformance"?

I'm not requesting a change, just raising the idea. You English native speakers know better what make sense.

cheers,
-ys

-----Original Message-----
From: Dr. David Filip [mailto:David.Filip@ul.ie] 
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 2:57 AM
To: Felix Sasaki
Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
Subject: Re: issue-63 (Re: Comment on ITS 2.0 specification WD - "conformance" Issue Type)

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.h
>> tml (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-comme
>>>> nts
>>>> /2012Dec/0020.html
>>>> and the "existing tools" aspect
>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comme
>>>> nts
>>>> /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 14:59:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 February 2013 14:59:04 GMT