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: Phil Ritchie <philr@vistatec.ie>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:32:39 +0000
To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Cc: <public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFEF33A889.86BD0932-ON80257B1F.0032F90A-80257B1F.00346DEB@vistatec.ie>
Yves

The values that we wish to encode do not simply classify conformance or 
non-conformance in a binary fashion. Rather degrees of both. They are 
somewhat analogous to mtConfidence. Higher values indicate increasing 
non-conformance, lower values increasing conformance.

I see your perspective that other items in the data category emphasise 
negative traits - inconsistency, omission. In the interest of consistency 
I am happy if the Type value is "non-conformance".

Phil.





From:   Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
To:     <public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org>, 
Date:   22/02/2013 14:59
Subject:        RE: issue-63 (Re: Comment on ITS 2.0 specification WD - 
"conformance"  Issue Type)



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
>> ************************************************************
>>
>>
>
>





************************************************************
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 Wednesday, 27 February 2013 09:33:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 February 2013 09:33:10 GMT