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

RE: [action 265] data category specific confidence scores

From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 05:27:15 -0700
To: "'Multilingual Web LT Public List'" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <assp.0665948eb5.assp.0665b1a7c7.005601cdc263$618724d0$24956e70$@com>
hi Dave,


I agree with not having a confidence for Localization Quality Issue.

I haven’t seen a reason to have one for Domain.





From: Dave Lewis [mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:31 AM
To: Multilingual Web LT Public List
Subject: Fwd: [action 265] data category specific confidence scores


Hi all,

To try and wrap up this point:

Summary  of Discussion so far:
1) text analytics annotation was proposed as a way of offering a confidence score for text analytics results. As with mtconfidence score, the tools annotaiton is now covered by the itsTool feature, but the proposal for confidence scores remains

2) Marcis pointed out, using real world terminology use cases, that we may have several annotations operating on the same fragment, so applying a confidence score to different text analytics annotations with a single data category won't work in these cases because of complete override. 

Also, if we used text analytics annotation with annotation from other data categories we are breaking our 'no dependencies between data category rules'. 

3) We could overcome the complete override problems using standoff mark up as in loc quality issue and provenance. But as confidence score would be different for each annotated fragment, that would result in very big stand-off records, and we would still be breaking the data cat dependencies rule. So this doesn't seem a realistic option

4) so the suggestion discussed in Lyon was to drop  text analytics annotation altogether as a separate data category and focus on adding confidence attributes to the existing data categories that would benefit from it.


I therefore suggest the following and we need your feedback by friday 16th Nov so we can wrap this up on the monday call!

For those extended with confidence score (terminology, disambiguation) please express your support and any comments by friday - if we don't receive any we will definitely drop these suggestions. Marcis, Tadej in particular, please consider review these.

For exclusions (domain, localizationQualityissue), this is your last chance to counter-argue in favour of including, otherwise assume these are dropped also.

i) confidence for terminology: as suggested by Marcis (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Nov/0028.html), revised data category as word revisions attached (addition to local definition, note on its-tools and example  38)

ii) confidence for disambiguation: revised data category as word revisions attached (addition to local definition, note on its-tools and ex 52)

iii) domain: I suggest excluding this as an annotation to which we attach a confidence score. Its not clear that the use of text analytics to identify domain, while feasible, actually represents a real use case for interoperability mark-up. If use it would probably be internalized by the MT engine. Also, since there are multiple domain values the semantics of a single confidence score is unclear.

iv) localizationQualityIssue: i suggest also excluding this as an annotation to which we attach confidence scores. The use of statistical text analytics doesn't seem common for QA tasks. One exception is the recent innovation by digital lingusitics whose Review Sentinel product ranks translation but a TA assessment for QA purposes - but this innovative and not current practice, so its probably not yet a concrete use case.


Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2012 12:27:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:08:24 UTC