- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 11:37:51 +0200
- To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAL58czpsvEKbiseBB2708Kv5dr6xso+ViYxg4k19SmwQnoOQHQ@mail.gmail.com>
See
http://www.w3.org/2012/05/04-mlw-lt-minutes.html
and below as text.
Felix
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
mlw-lt
04 May 2012
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012May/0031.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2012/05/04-mlw-lt-irc
Attendees
Present
arle, daveL, des, df, fsasaki, milan, moritz, pedro,
tadej
Regrets
Chair
davidF
Scribe
fsasaki
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Action Item Review
2. [6]bringing the document up to spec
3. [7]aob
* [8]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
last meetings minutes approved
Action Item Review
<dF>
[9]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/ac
tions/overdue
[9] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/overdue
[10]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/a
ctions/36
[10] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/36
social media setup - what is the state?
david: social setup is managed between felix, arle and richard
- no need to track the item
arle: like to see an ongoing action item for doing the social
media outreach
david: arle proposed to regularly review this - I'll change it
to "ongoing social media outreach"
... new due date will be 18 May - title says "ongoing"
now open action items
[11]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/a
ctions/open
[11] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/open
felix: new due date for
[12]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/a
ctions/77
[12] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/77
<daveL>
[13]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/a
ctions/open
[13] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/open
felix: ACTION-77 - due next Monday
[14]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/a
ctions/76
[14] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/76
dave: new deadline should be 20 May
[15]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/a
ctions/79
[15] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/79
dave: two parts - one what pedro did, one suggestion I made
what we meant about trigger
... had some feedback from Moritz about separating that from
progress state
... two things remain: I'll update that section on that
proposal
... so that we have separate data categories or values
... we need to decide: what are the values of processes?
david: you will do the update by Monday?
dave: yes
[16]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/a
ctions/80
[16] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/80
tadej: there was my theory that the text analytics annotation
would be a general superclass
... I think there should be a superclass, but it should not be
text analytics annotation, since that implies that this is
automatic
... the general class would be to refer to an entity
... there is still an open question on the mtDisambiguation,
the rest is quite clear
dave: it's OK to have the issues open, as long as they are in
the notes
pedro: we can use very basic distinctions
... apart from the question "automatic generation or not"
... the difference for me is: are you tagging a part of the
real content (terminology, named entity) or whether you are
adding information, a kind of classificator
... you can add that additional information with a certain
scope
... this is a very basic distinction
tadej: we have also domain and genre, in the end they say the
same thing
... they basically say "what is the topic of the document?"
... e.g. "advertising text"
... that might be the same piece of information for the MT
disambiguation problem
pedro: two distinctions according to the semantics - would be
great to have feedback from piek vossen -
... you can have two types of information: subject or semantic
keyword
... it is true that the domain metadata covers that
... we have to see if we are going to add semantic primitives
appart from domain
dave: intention of domain data category could cover the whole
document than just a term
... we might want to keep domain separately
... but that wouldn't stop you for terminology to bind a domain
declaration to some terminology
... otherwise we need a terminology domain
... e.g. a news report mentioning terminology for the medical
domain
david: how does disambiguation data to genre?
dave: mt disambiguatino relates to terms I think, on the term
level
tadej: Mtdisambigation is supposed to mark up fragments of text
with additional information that would help me
... is there something about mtdisambiguation that is not
covered by domain?
need to involve thomas from lucy and declan from DCU in the
discussion
david: you mentioned people who understand that from the MT
point of view
... we can also solicit feedback from asia online
... this will be local text fragments for MT in realtime
... asia online could give good feedback on this
arle: I'll give another try on this
david: some people in the working group, tadej, can you reach
out to people like thomas from lucy and declan from dcu, to get
their feedback by e.g. next week?
tadej: yes, will do
arle: will contact asia online guy again
david: new deadline is next friday
[17]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/a
ctions/62
[17] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/62
dave: might be defered until we have consolidated the data
categories
... next week
[18]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/a
ctions/67
[18] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/67
<daveL>
[19]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Req
uirements_Assessment
[19] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements_Assessment
dave: sent a mail out last night
URI above
dave: I listed data categories, trying to keep the list up to
date
... some are ITS 1.0 requirements, we have to do that
... next column: I recorded IDs of people who responded to the
questionnaire
... terminlogoy, context and translate came up a lot
... in terms of difficulties, sometimes hard to see whether we
understand the requirement and the use case
... or there is a consensus problem
... some technical knowledge sometimes hasn't emerged yet, e.g.
mt disambiguation
david: so a lot of interest in domain
... process triger
... id value is difficult
... context is important, but very difficult
... apart from the initial post we haven't discussed
... your action item is completed, now everyone should have a
look to review it
felix: propose an implementation commitment column
dave: agree
<Milan> BW: Disable (0 Mbit) 0 b/s (0 bytes) down, 0 b/s (0
bytes) up
<scribe> ACTION: daveL to add an implementation committment
column to the table and ask people to populate it [recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2012/05/04-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-82 - Add an implementation
committment column to the table and ask people to populate it
[on David Lewis - due 2012-05-11].
pedro: reference to provenance group - the related action
belongs to dave
dave: yes, still working on that
... there will be some decisions about what we will have in the
document, what external etc.
... I'll try and address that before early next week
pedro: I have my name also in the "autolanguage processing
rule"
... need to clarify the purpose of this
<scribe> .. pending is also the ACTION-64
ACTION-64?
<trackbot> ACTION-64 -- David Lewis to discuss with pedro about
providing feedback to best-practices group -- due 2012-05-08 --
OPEN
<trackbot>
[21]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/ac
tions/64
[21] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/64
pedro: we only need to provide our input about best practices
dave: I'll follow up with you, I talked to Richard about that,
to get it published it needs a kind of committment
... to get it published you need to be involved
pedro: won't have time, just FYI
felix: please keep me in CC, I am also in the i18n core group
and can maybe give additional information
bringing the document up to spec
dave: we have a few weeks before we send a first draft out
... I am prioritzing the consolidation
... there is other issues like populating the use cases, to
make it more understandable
... some requirements are stubs, that haven't been elaborated
on
... should we make more effort to make the document more
readable
<Arle> Felix: There is no real rule about that. Think about
what your most important audience is. Think that most of your
readers will know what directionality is and it is enough to
have a pointer to ITS 1.0 or HTML dir attribute, that is
sufficient.
<Arle> .. If there are different audiences then it is harder
and you have to explain everything. But normally the
requirement documents explain their audience and target only
them.
dave: we should be writing this to target people in the
localization industry
<Arle> Felix: I think one value of the group is that we should
make outreach to people where the localization industry is
normally not involved. E.g., Dave will meet people from the
Microsoft browser side of things. If you want HTML5
integration, it would help the localization industry.
<Arle> .. But you need to communicate it intelligibly to the
browser community. It is not something for the requirements
document, but for a general strategy we should involve people
from the HTML working group.
<Arle> .. We should involve Richard, e.g., with his blog post
on the translate attribute.
<Arle> .. It is OK to have the loc focus, but don't treat the
fact that this is happening in the W3C as just a coincidence.
david: yes, it's an ultimate benefit for the downstream of the
categories are taken up
dave: best way to do that is to focus on explaining which
sections focus on which product classes
... it is better to focus on getting somthing like arle's table
so that they see which part is important for which audience
felix: agree, having a table with pointers to different
audiences is a good approach
david: process diagrams will help too
arle: maybe on monday we can discuss that as well
aob
felix: will continue the liaison discussion on Tuesday offline
- sorry for my strong mail to the public list, will make "peace
again" with David
adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: daveL to add an implementation committment column
to the table and ask people to populate it [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2012/05/04-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [23]scribe.perl version
1.136 ( [24]CVS log)
$Date: 2012/05/04 09:35:39 $
[23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[24] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Friday, 4 May 2012 09:38:24 UTC