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

Re: [ACTION-256]: Compile and circulate itsTool examples togehter with proposal text

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 14:21:13 +0100
Message-ID: <CAL58czoADuDgvfgpbLPSFzmak=KGCsN_VbnBR3ABhaLhEgOy=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>, "public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
2012/11/8 Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>

> Hi Yves, all,
> essentially your outline is right, except I don't think we've had a
> concensus on the inclusion of global rules here (as well as in other data
> categories, but lets do that elsewhere).
>
> So to consider reasons got gloabl rules for mtConfidence score,
> 1) whether we need global for supporting pointer is blocked on the XLIFF
> mapping (here, I agree with Felix, that if XLIFF mapping is the only
> usecase for pointers, then specifying this in a separate mapping rather
> than via a generic feature in ITS would be better in terms of simplfying
> ITS)
>
> 2) whether we need global rules for convenience is I think is a "no",
> since in general, we need to specify a different confidence score for every
> segment so we are unlikely to define it for sets of nodes via rules
>
> 3) whether we need global rules to support annotation of attributes is
> still an issue as discussed at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-multilingualweb-**
> lt/2012Oct/0271.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Oct/0271.html>
>
> In Lyon, however, David expressed the view that this was important, given
> the common use of translatable strings in, for examples, img attributes. I
> spoke recently to Enda McDonnell, head of engineering at Alchemy Software
> (CAT tool vendor) who was also of the opinion that support for translatable
> attributes was an important use case.
>
> So here is the revised Mtconfidence data category wording and examples -
> with global rules (but no pointers for now). Note, I've specifically used
> attribute examples for the global rules. I didn't immediately see similar
> examples so comments welcome on this usage.
>
> Are we near concensus - barring the pointer/XLIFF mapping issue?
>

We need also to resolve the URI definition issue (if such a definition is
needed) - see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Nov/0064.html

But that is not specific to mtconfidenc but to toolinfo in general I guess.

Best,

Felix



>
> cheers,
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 07/11/2012 18:12, Yves Savourel wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>  which can be in the same file or in external file,
>>> you would encode everything into single URL:
>>> its:toolsRef="MTConfidence|htt**p://mymt.org/toolinfo?version=**
>>> 456&value=FR-to-EN-General<http://mymt.org/toolinfo?version=456&value=FR-to-EN-General>
>>> "
>>>
>> I'm looking at the current draft for MT Confidence and I'm not sure I
>> understand why mtConfidenceScore is not defined either in the global rule
>> or as local attribute. But maybe that's a moot point.
>>
>> My understanding is that now MT Confidence would have:
>>
>> Global:
>>
>> - a required selector
>> - a required mtConfidenceScore
>> - a required its:toolsRef
>>
>> Local:
>>
>> - a required mtConfidenceScore
>> - a required its:toolsRef
>>
>> its:toolsRef would be defined separately, including what parameters it
>> must use (version and value).
>>
>> And in the MT confidence section we would just define what goes in value.
>>
>>
>> Is that what we all have in mind?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -yves
>>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow
Received on Thursday, 8 November 2012 13:21:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 9 June 2013 00:25:03 UTC