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

Re: [all] Discussion on proposed metadata categories: approvalStatus

From: Moritz Hellwig <Moritz.Hellwig@cocomore.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 19:40:39 +0200
Message-ID: <AA5BFD58-CF17-474D-BE58-03BD5D87C13A@cocomore.com>
To: <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Hello,

I might make this a separate thread, but since we are already talking about processState here...

There were quite a lot of requests from our editorial team to have something like

processIndicator 
Values integer, 0 to 100

Zero would be "LSP process not begun"-ish, 100 would be "Completed". 

There are - from our point of view - considerable advantages:
A) we can show a process progress indicator (in whichever visual representation) that does not require an understanding of what the actual process phase is on the MT side. 
B) the indicator can be agnostic to the number of processes / stages on the side of the LSP. If you run a hundred separate processes or feedback loops: fine by me.

This would be beneficial for e.g. content creators who are unfamiliar with the language technology, its processes and so on. Also, it would allow us to built dashboards and generate reports e.g. to show and sort by progression & keep better track of multilingual projects. 

Any thoughts?

Cheers,
Moritz

Sent from my iPhone

On 27.04.2012, at 01:14, "David Lewis" <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:

> Pedro,
> Yes, the redundancy of process state is one outcome of what I'm proposing here.
> 
> The key difference is that the proposal is that the data category indicates the next process that should be performed, rather than indicating the current process in operation. The motivation is that the readiness to undergo a new process step is more useful to a document in a CMS, then knowing the current state that is operating on it.
> 
> Complementary to this, provenance indicates that a process is completed, and associated with this records useful information needed to monitor correct or efficient process operation, perhaps as needed to monitor a service level agreement.
> 
> Neither process trigger or provenance however actually aim to control process flow. This is a complex topic which therefore is probably out of scope. 
> 
> What we do need however, is a way of defining  the values to use for referencing processes, i.e. from both the 'request-process' and the process reference in provenance. For this we may want both a default set in the standard, and a way of unambiguously defining these for a particular business case. The key thing in any one case of interoperability is that the interoperating implementations exchange and understand the _same set_ of process values. 
> 
> let keep the discussion going on the list,
> Dave
> 
> On 26/04/2012 15:29, Pedro L. Díez Orzas wrote:
>> 
>> Hi David,
>>  
>> I need to consider this more carefully.
>>  
>> But, what I see is that process state is perhaps redundant with: proofreading state or revision state, since these can be values of process state: proofreaded, revised, reviewed, translated, localized…
>>  
>> Best,
>> Pedro
>>  
>> De: David Lewis [mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie] 
>> Enviado el: jueves, 26 de abril de 2012 1:52
>> Para: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
>> Asunto: Re: [all] Discussion on proposed metadata categories: approvalStatus
>>  
>> Hi Moritz,
>> I think you make a very good general point here. It may be a bit too open ended to specify data categories that hardwire the completion of a specific step. We would run into the same issues we have with defining the different process values as we discussed around process trigger. Also, its not clear to me that all status flag suggestion for current steps, e.g. legal approval, really need to be separated from other steps.
>> 
>> I think therefore we could generalise this as part of the process trigger data category as you suggest. This could allow us to consolidate approvalStatus, cacheStatus, legalStaus, proofReading state and revision state (and delegate the definition of these steps to data values rather than individual data categories). We can address cacheStatus, and at he same time generalise it to other processes than just translation, by including the time stamp and a revision flag. 
>> 
>> Also, I think the priority data category should be included here, as translation could consist of many different processes in combination, so it semantics are dependent on which one. At the same time we may also be interested in defining priorities even for non translation activities, such as review.
>> 
>> requested-process (which has the name of the next process requested)
>> 
>> process-ref (which may allow us to point to an external set of process definitions used for processRequested if the default value set is not used)
>> 
>> ready-at (defines the time the content is ready for the process, it could be some time                 in the past, or some time in the future - this support part of the cacheStatus function)
>> 
>> revised (yes/no - indicated is this is a different version of content that was previously marked as ready for the declared process)
>> 
>> priority (I think for now we should keep this simple and just have values high/low )
>> 
>> complete-by (provides a target date-time for completing the process)
>> 
>> Any thoughts on this suggestion. Pedro, Ryan, Moritz, Des, I think this impacts on data categories you have an interest in.
>> 
>> Also, DavidF, Pedro, Ryan, do you think this makes process state redundant? As a status flag are we more interested in what process to do next, rather than which one is finished. At the same time the provenance data category could tell us which processes have already finished operating on the content. 
>> 
>> cheers,
>> Dave
>> 
>> 
>> On 24/04/2012 11:11, Moritz Hellwig wrote:
>> to identify publication process metadata which might also be relevant for the LSP. I ran into a couple of questions though.
>>  
>> I’ll use approvalStatus as an example (from the requirements document):
>> >> approvalStatus
>> >> Information about the status of the content in a formal approval workflow
>> >> Indicates whether the content has been approved for release
>> >> Possible values:
>> >>>> yes
>> >>>> no
>>  
>> Approval can have many values which are rarely only “release yes|no” and they can be client/application-specific. However, none of these statuses seem to be relevant to the LSP, as they only precede or succeed                 the LSP’s processes.
>>  
> 
Received on Friday, 27 April 2012 17:43:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 9 June 2013 00:24:55 UTC