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

[Minutes] MLW-LT WG call 2012-12-03 ...

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 22:07:59 +0100
Message-ID: <50BD14AF.4080801@w3.org>
To: "public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
... are at http://www.w3.org/2012/12/03-mlw-lt-minutes.html
and below as text. For some cases I was too fast in putting in topic 
lines, so I re-arranged some bits. Please have a look.




       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                                MLW-LT WG

03 Dec 2012


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Dec/0016.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2012/12/03-mlw-lt-irc


           felix, arle, dave, Yves, Ankit, Arle, shaunm, tadej,
           DomJones, mdelolmo, leroy, dF, pnietoca, Des, philr,
           Pedro, chriLi



           Arle, fsasaki


      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]role call
          2. [6]Issues Check
          3. [7]Terminology
          4. [8]Disambiguation
          5. [9]Provenance
          6. [10]Localization Quality Rating
          7. [11]Localization Quality Issue
          8. [12]toolsRef change
          9. [13]Vote for last call publication
         10. [14]Next steps
         11. [15]Upcoming calls and AOB
         12. [16]EC issues
      * [17]Summary of Action Items

role call

    <fsasaki> waiting for attendees ...

Issues Check

    <Serge> test typing

    <DomJones> +1 on short ;)


      [18] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/open


    Felix: We can publish a feature-complete draft without
    addressing the edtiorial bits in section 1.


      [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Nov/0263.html

    Felix: We want to make people aware of this. We discussed not
    using TermConfidence global. Marcis is OK with this change. Any

    Felix: No comments. Moving on.



      [20] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#disambiguation-global

    Felix: We had various actions to finalize disambiguation. Main
    change is that now global attributes are parallel to local
    attributes. Thanks to Tadej for providing that.


      [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Dec/0014.html

    Felix: One additional topic emerged on the weekend: casing of
    granularity attribute.


      [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Dec/0023.html

    Felix: Mail thread shows that it might be more convenient to
    use lower-case values.

    <fsasaki> "lexicalConcept > lexical-concept"

    Felix: Changes to the draft are posted by Felix.

    <fsasaki> ontologyConcept >ontology-concept

    Felix: This saves the problem of relating HTML5 and XML
    ... Felix: Will make this change prior to making the final
    call. Then we can see this.

    <scribe> ACTION: Felix to update casing in disambiguation.
    [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-355 - Update casing in
    disambiguation. [on Felix Sasaki - due 2012-12-10].



      [24] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#provenance-global

    Felix: People need to be aware of latest changes. See URL.


      [25] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#EX-provenance-local-1


      [26] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/examples/xml/EX-provenance-local-1.xml

    Felix: We added the provRef.

Localization Quality Rating


      [27] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#lqrating-implementation

    Felix: We had the question of whether the value should be 0 to
    1 or 0 to 100. The draft now has 0 to 100.

    Phil: Given that it is a decimal number I don't mind. I thought
    we were going 0 to 1, but some people (Des?) felt that 0 to 100
    is more intuitive. But as long as it is decimal it doesn't
    really matter.

    Des: This conversation was a long time ago. 0 to 100 is good
    because it maps to percentages, but I don't care a lot either

    Felix: If we want to move forward and both solutions work, use
    0 to 100 so we don't need to change things in the spec and slow
    things down.

    Serge: Industry uses 1 to 10 or 1 5to 5. But anything works

Localization Quality Issue


      [28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Nov/0266.html


      [29] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#lqissue-typevalues

    Felix: Arle made some clarifications in the type definition.
    See the draft.

    <fsasaki> scribe: fsasaki

    arle: three changes there made
    ... two were strictly explanatory, one was normative
    ... there was a clarification needed related to terminology
    ... daniel as an implementor asked about that
    ... we clarified that in the "lqissue type" table
    ... the 2nd change was about white space
    ... daniel pointed out that this type should relate to any type
    of white space issue
    ... that is in general, not only related to translation
    ... third change:
    ... daniel asked if register would apply to something like
    spelling, e.g. british vs. american
    ... I made a clarification that these would go under local

    <scribe> scribe: arle

toolsRef change

    Felix: This is the last one. Summary is that there was a thread
    about the usage of the ToolRef mechanism and its
    differentiation from provenance. In this thread it became clear
    that we needed to clarify the relation.


      [30] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/File:Its20-annotation-edits.docx

    Felix: I created an annotated document with the draft.

    (Felix does screen sharing to show the annotation)

    Pablo: I reviewed it and it looks fine.

    <fsasaki> "annotatorsRef"

    Felix: We renamed toolsRef to annotatorsRef.
    ... This clarifies that it relates to annotations.
    ... We added explanatory text. It separates three different
    pieces of tool-related information.

    Dave: I read it and it seems clear. One minor note: "should
    always" sounds mandatory, but maybe it doesn't matter as it is
    in a note. Perhaps say "should" instead of "should always."

    <chriLi> Do we have a definition for "annotation"?

    Dave: I think it is a good change.

    Felix: We don't have a formal definition here.
    ... Christian, do you want a different term? This was meant as
    a note.

    Christian: It's not about the term itself. It's fine. More it
    is that if we are talking about annotations and have three
    kinds of processes, we need to be clear what we mean by
    ... Wouldn't modification of textual content count as
    ... There are two questions: (1) should we be very explicit
    about what we mean by "annotation"? (2) Should that definition
    go in this note or elsewhere?

    Felix: If we would add new normative text to explain the note,
    I would worry. I see the point but I would rather change the
    note and not add a normative definition.

    Christian: I was thinking only of the non-normative

    Felix: Would you like an action to phrase such a definition
    (wherever we put it)? I agree it would help.
    ... We don't use the term "annotation" outside of this.

    Christian: I'm not sure I could work on it under the current
    time line.

    Felix: Since it is non-normative, it would not influence our
    timeline. We could still go to last call. Your time line would
    be whenever we progress the document. There are many parts that
    need clarification (especially in sections 1 and 2).

    Christian: Then I could do it.

    <scribe> ACTION: Christian to draft non-normative definition of
    "annotation" [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-356 - Draft non-normative definition
    of "annotation" [on Christian Lieske - due 2012-12-10].

    Dave: Could we refer to Annex H to deal with this issue?

    <fsasaki> "create ITS annotations;" > "create ITS annotations,
    see the [link to list of elements / attributes in annex H];"

    Felix: That would be one way. Is what I typed what you mean?

    Dave: Yes.

    Felix: I think some clarification is needed, but I think that
    ... Chrstian, is 10.December good?

    Christian: More time would be good.

    <fsasaki> action-356: time line will be updated

    <trackbot> ACTION-356 Draft non-normative definition of
    "annotation" notes added

    Felix: Let us know when you can do it.

Vote for last call publication

    Felix: Last call means that we (WG) think the draft is feature
    complete and are looking for outside feedback until at least 10


      [32] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/open?sort=due

    Felix: We did all actions need for publication.

    <chriLi> +queue

    <chriLi> queue

    Felix: Before publication we need to make the change in
    disambiguation case and AnnotatorsRef.


      [33] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/TR-version/#status

    Christian: Can you briefly explain the procedure around
    publication/last call for comments? What does it mean? Where do
    comments go?

    <fsasaki> "The normative sections of this document (from
    Section 3: Notation and Terminology to Section 8: Description
    of Data Categories and Appendix A: References to Appendix D:
    Schemas for ITS) are stable. The other, non-normative sections
    contain only explanatory material and will be updated in a
    later working draft. Hence, the Working Group especially
    encourages feedback on the normative...

    <fsasaki> ...sections. The goal is to move out of last call
    without any substantive changes to these sections."

    Felix: That will help those are new. See the link I supplied.
    That link goes to the status. See the paragraph I pasted as

    <fsasaki> "To give feedback send your comments to
    public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org. Use "Comment on ITS
    2.0 specification WD" in the subject line of your email. The
    archives for this list are publicly available. See also issues
    discussed within the Working Group and the list of changes
    since the previous publication."

    <fsasaki> "The Last Call period ends 10 January 2013."

    Felix: We will gather comments sent to that list until 10
    January. Then the WG has to come back to all commenters to make
    sure that they are satisfied with our response.
    ... This is something not new to some of us, but let me show
    what we will work with.


      [34] http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/lc-replies.html

    Felix: We create a "disposition of comments." For each comment
    (even spelling mistake) and non-normative clarification we
    supply what the comment was, when it was received, etc. + what
    change (if any) we made. We need to respond to these to move to
    the next stage if we are to say that the public considers it
    ... If there are normative changes, we would have to go back to
    last call. So that is why we don't want to have any delay.

    Christian: Thanks for the review.

    Dave: What happens if the reviewer isn't satisfied?

    <fsasaki> "formal objection"

    Felix: We can go back and forth, but if the reviewer isn't
    satisfied he can file a "formal objection" to moving forward.
    If nothing helps, the reviewer has to have a call with the
    co-chairs and the director (Tim Berners-Lee or designee). This
    rarely happens.
    ... They do happen, but outside of HTML5 it is rare.

    Jirka: When do you need to be done? I'd like to put more
    documentation in the schema (not a normative change).

    Felix: I can send it for publication, but I can tell the
    manager that there are still a few unstable files until

    Jirka: That would be OK with me. I have put schema in the
    appendix. It is linked like examples.

    Felix: I think that is OK. If the webmaster accepts the files
    it should be fine.

    Jirka: It's not super important, but nice to have, and I can
    work on it tomorrow.

    Felix: I can send the draft today, but I can tell the webmaster
    that we need to change certain parts that are auto-generated.
    We would know by today where we are on this.

    Christian: On disposition of comments, is there a timing
    related to that?

    Felix: Only related to our charter.

    <fsasaki> [35]http://www.w3.org/2012/09/mlw-lt-charter.html

      [35] http://www.w3.org/2012/09/mlw-lt-charter.html

    Felix: Our candidate recommendation phase is that we are
    supposed to be out of last call in March.
    ... If we have comments by 10 January, we have 2 months 3 weeks
    to get back and get positive answers.
    ... For ITS 1.0 we had 60 comments. It took a lot of effort.
    ... Our timeline supplies the pressure.
    ... Are you happy with publishing it with the explanations
    concerning the state and next steps?
    ... Is everyone OK with it?

    Jirka: Did you discuss the issue of case sensitivity?

    Felix: Yes. We said we would move from camel case to lc +


      [36] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/355

    <fsasaki> "lexicalConcept > lexical-concept"

    <fsasaki> "ontologyConcept > ontology-concept"

    Jirka: Thanks. That clarifies it.

    Felix: I will make these schema changes.
    ... Who wants it to be published?

    Various: We do.

    <dF> +1

    <Yves_> +1

    <dF> :-)

    Felix: Silence is agreement, but positive votes are good too.
    ... I am happy that we have a feature-complete set for ITS 2.0.

    <Pedro> x1 :-)

    <dF> I need to run, guys.. Thanks everyone for your good work!

    <scribe> ACTION: Felix to prepare last call publication.
    [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-357 - Prepare last call publication.
    [on Felix Sasaki - due 2012-12-10].

    <chriLi> +q

    <Pedro> +q

    Dom: Reminder about testing-suite webinar tomorrow.

    Christian: About the last call. Of course I have full
    confidence in your procedural knowledge. Do we need to ask for
    abstains or objections?

    Felix: Normally it is enough to record an affirmative vote.

    Christian: I abstain.

    <philr> I vote to publish.

Next steps

    Pedro: What about the deadlines Arle mentioned?

    Felix: Let's go through next steps first.


      [38] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Dec/0025.html

    Felix: We need feedback from outside.
    ... Currently the outside comment list is empty. Use the email
    draft I posted to get reviewers.
    ... Can you ask for individuals to provide feedback?
    ... Type your name if you can ask people individually.


    <chriLi> +q

    <daveL> I can ask people at WeLocalise, Alchemy and Symantec

    Christian: Is there a way to avoid us all asking the same
    people for review?

    Arle: I will ask IBM, Lionbridge, SDL.

    <Yves_> I should be able to ask comments to a few Localization
    tools developers.

    <Pedro> Pedro, I can ask also a couple of people

    <chriLi> +q

    <shaunm> + q

    <shaunm> +q

    <fsasaki> scribe: Arle_

    <philr> I'll need to discuss who I talk to with my Business
    Development Managers

    Felix: People are to submit names to Arle, Felix, Nieves by
    Wednesday. They will respond on overlap by Friday.

    Christian: [Arle missed the question]


      [39] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2012OctDec/0070.html

    Felix: We will send a notification to other chairs. We also
    have a requirement to send an announcement to the XLIFF TC
    because our charter specifies that.

    Shaun: What people would be appropriate to invite?

    <Clemens> sorry, I've to go to another meeting

    Felix: The current draft is not stable for explanatory
    sections, so it doesn't make sense to invite high-level
    business people. We need people who can provide technical
    ... People in localization, LT, etc. can provide feedback.
    ... Anyone who might apply ITS 2.0 in a technical sense.

    Shaun: I talk to two open-source localization tool developing
    groups. They are not implementers now, but may be.

    Felix: It makes sense to me. Contact those who might implement
    and who would need to know technical details.
    ... I focused on technical aspects. We need to make sure it is
    easy to integrate ITS.
    ... In their tools
    ... I will nudge some of your to get more people for comments.
    ... One issue: we need a native-speaker check on the document.

Upcoming calls and AOB

    Felix: Although we are in last call, I propose that we continue
    calls on 10 December at least.
    ... We can discuss outreach and EC issues.

    Arle: We might talk to Serge about Localization Professionals.

    Serge: It would go to 18,000 people on LinkedIn.
    ... About 45% are client-side, 30% LSP. So you need to be
    particularly clear about what you want.

    <tadej> ./me I need to leave now, best regarrds

    <scribe> ACTION: Felix to work on Localization Professionals
    announcement draft [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-358 - Work on Localization
    Professionals announcement draft [on Felix Sasaki - due

    <fsasaki> ACTION: felix to prepare localization professionals
    linked in mail draft [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-359 - Prepare localization
    professionals linked in mail draft [on Felix Sasaki - due

EC issues

    Pedro: Regarding the deadlines, there are three things. (1) Is
    there a difference between those that are due already versus
    those that are ongoing?
    ... (2) For ongoing things we can send something by the 10th.
    ... (3) For tasks that involve other task leaders, we need help
    from them to prepare this.

    Felix: Clarification. We know about the Month 12 report. The
    idea is not that Arle writes it, but rather that it is a
    template. We need it by the 10th for the report. But note that
    this it not a statement about a final outcome or to provide all
    technical details.
    ... We really need a few paragraphs about the current state.
    This will be public. Please expect there to be public readers.
    ... Two aspects: (1) reporting; (2) something easy to
    understand. Perhaps you can reuse some use-case text from
    Prague meeting.
    ... Some people didn't write anything yet who may not have
    their own implementation, but we need information on

    <fsasaki> scribe: fsasaki

    arle: if there is something this is not relevant yet
    ... you can ommit that
    ... the report is just to re-assure that things are going as we

    pedro: mail arle sent about the action is not only about work
    packages leaders
    ... but for all task leaders, and the contributors

    yves: what should the contributors do
    ... send something individually, or to whom?

    arle: I assigned the actions to the task leaders
    ... so make that clear with your task leader


      [42] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Deliverables


      [43] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/WP3


    <Arle_> Felix: It you look at out deliverables sections, some
    task leaders will need help. I encourage, especially for
    Cocomore, don't wait to ask for information. Please send
    information on to the task leaders.

    <Arle_> .. Please be proactive.

    <Arle_> Clemens: Thanks. I'll send an email to remind people.

    <Arle_> Dave: I've been through the process recently, but the
    Commission had page-length restrictions.

    <Arle_> Arle: I believe it isn't super particular.

    <Arle_> ACTION: Felix to confirm page restrictions in report
    with Kimmo. [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-360 - Confirm page restrictions in
    report with Kimmo. [on Felix Sasaki - due 2012-12-10].

    <Arle_> Dave: Do we need to provide finance updates/cost claims
    or does that need to wait until after the end of the year?

    <Arle_> ACTION: Felix to confirm dates for financial updates
    [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-361 - Confirm dates for financial
    updates [on Felix Sasaki - due 2012-12-10].


      [46] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Deliverables

    <Arle_> Pedro: Can we have more time than Dec. 10?


      [47] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Use_cases_-_high_level_summary

    <Arle_> Felix: Yes, the deadline is short. The goal is to get
    the report done before Christmas. But the good news is that we
    don't need super detailed information. That link has probably
    enough information. We might be able to repurpose that already.
    A few more days would be OK.

    <Arle_> .. We don't need a lot of material, but rather soon.
    Could we say 12th or 13th for you?

    <Arle_> Pedro: For me it is fine, but it depends on the speed
    of the answers.

    <Arle_> Arle: I asked for a best-case level of detail.

    <Arle_> Pedro: I will ask for two paragraphs from everyone.

    <Arle_> Felix: Who are you waiting for answers from?

    <Arle_> Pedro: Declan, Daniel, Phil. VistaTEC is the one I
    don't know about and can't comment on.

    felix: I'll take care of vistaTec

    <Arle_> ACTION: Felix to clarify VistTEC status for annual
    report. [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-362 - Clarify VistTEC status for
    annual report. [on Felix Sasaki - due 2012-12-10].

    <Arle_> Pedro: Clarify for action 3.2

    <Arle_> .. I will take care of Lucy and DCU this week.

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Christian to draft non-normative definition of
    "annotation" [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Felix to clarify VistTEC status for annual
    report. [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Felix to confirm dates for financial updates
    [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Felix to confirm page restrictions in report with
    Kimmo. [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Felix to prepare last call publication. [recorded
    [NEW] ACTION: felix to prepare localization professionals
    linked in mail draft [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Felix to update casing in disambiguation.
    [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Felix to work on Localization Professionals
    announcement draft [recorded in

    [End of minutes]

     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [57]scribe.perl version
     1.137 ([58]CVS log)
     $Date: 2012-12-03 21:06:12 $

      [57] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [58] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 3 December 2012 21:08:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:08:25 UTC