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

Re: Question on toolsRef for disambigConfidence and termConfidence (Re: Atb.: [action 265] data category specific confidence scores)

From: Tadej Stajner <tadej.stajner@ijs.si>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:55:55 +0100
Message-ID: <50ACA52B.20109@ijs.si>
To: Mārcis Pinnis <marcis.pinnis@Tilde.lv>
CC: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>, "public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>, dave lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
Hi, Marcis, all,
I can confirm that for the disambiguation example - they pre-date the 
inclusion of the toolsRef mechanism. The rule itself is fine - a score 
needs to be in the scope of a tool.
-- Tadej

On 11/21/2012 8:21 AM, Mārcis Pinnis wrote:
>
> Hi Felix,
>
> I assume (following the definition) that the examples (40 and 54) are 
> not correct. It probably has happened because the term confidence and 
> also the disambiguation examples have been created before agreeing on 
> the toolsRef attribute.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mārcis ;o)
>
> *From:*Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 21, 2012 8:03 AM
> *To:* public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org; dave lewis; 
> tadej.stajner@ijs.si; Mārcis Pinnis
> *Subject:* Question on toolsRef for disambigConfidence and 
> termConfidence (Re: Atb.: [action 265] data category specific 
> confidence scores)
>
> Hi all again,
>
> looking into the "confidence score" attributes again, I saw these 
> three paragraphs:
>
> " Any node selected by the MT Confidence 
> <http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#mtconfidence> 
> data category MUST 
> <http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#rfc2119> 
> be contained in an element with the |toolsRef| (or in HTML5, 
> |its-tools-ref|) attribute specified for the MT Confidence 
> <http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#mtconfidence> 
> data category. For more information, see Section 5.8: ITS Tools 
> Annotation 
> <http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#its-tool-annotation>."
>
> " Any node selected by the terminology data category with the 
> |termConfidence| attribute specified MUST 
> <http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#rfc2119> 
> be contained in an element with the |toolsRef| (or in HTML5 
> |its-tools-ref|) attribute specified for the Terminology 
> <http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#terminology> 
> data category. See Section 5.8: ITS Tools Annotation 
> <http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#its-tool-annotation> 
> for more information."
>
> " Any node selected by the disambiguation 
> <http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#Disambiguation> 
> data category with the |disambigConfidence| attribute specified MUST 
> <http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#rfc2119> 
> be contained in an element with the |toolsRef| (or in HTML5 
> |its-tools-ref|) attribute specified for the disambiguation 
> <http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#Disambiguation> 
> data category. For more information, see Section 5.8: ITS Tools 
> Annotation 
> <http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#its-tool-annotation>."
>
> However, the examples for  termConfidence (ex. 40) and 
> disambigConfidence (ex. 54) show no toolsRef (or its-tools-ref) 
> attribute. Are the examples wrong or is toolsRef / its-tools-ref 
> optional for termConfidence and disambigConfidence?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Felix
>
> Am 20.11.12 22:07, schrieb Felix Sasaki:
>
>     Hi Dave, Marcis, Tadej, all,
>
>     Am 14.11.12 19:27, schrieb Tadej Stajner:
>
>     Hi, Dave, Marcis,
>     (see below)
>
>     On 11/14/2012 5:47 PM, Dave Lewis wrote:
>
>     thanks for the feedback, comment inline.
>
>     On 13/11/2012 19:56, Mārcis Pinnis wrote:
>
>     Hi Dave,
>
>     1) I support your suggestion as drafted in the attachment.
>     2) Although I believe there is a typing mistake:
>
>     <p>And he said: you need a new <quote its:term="yes"
>     its-info-term-ref=”http://www.directron.com/motherboards1.html”
>     <http://www.directron.com/motherboards1.html%94>
>     its-term-confidence=”0.5”>motherboard</quote></p>
>
>     I believe its-info-term-ref should actually be its-term-info-ref?!
>
>
>     thanks for spotting that, we'll fix it.
>
>
>     This should be fixed now at
>
>     http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#EX-terms-selector-4
>
>
>
>
>
>
>         3) Also, just a comment (our systems won't be affected,
>         but...) - why do you want to restrict the values to be from 0
>         to 1? In statistics it is quite common to use also LOG-scale
>         probabilities (because of otherwise small numbers in some
>         cases). Is it necessary to restrict users to a 0 to 1
>         interval? I would suggest leaving the decision up to the
>         user's. Also - the tools will have to be identified anyway.
>         This means that the users will be able to identify (if needed)
>         from the systems how to parse (understand) the confidence
>         scores. This is a general question that applies to other
>         confidence scores as well.
>
>
>         In general, we do not attach inter-tool significance to the
>         confidence scores, hence the requirement to specify the tool
>         using its-tools- ref. Normalising the score 0-1 is therefore
>         not intended to support inter-tool comparisons, but more give
>         the the presenting software a stable range/value to display.
>
>
>     On that note, I'd suggest explicitly adding a sentence that the
>     scores are comparable only in the context of the same tool. It
>     might be obvious to us, but it's an important point.
>
>
>
>     I tried to add that to the 1st paragraph at
>     http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#its-tool-annotation
>
>     for terminology, mt confidence and disambiguation.
>
>     Best,
>
>     Felix
>
>
>
>     -- Tadej
>
>
>
>
>     For Mt confidence score the concerned implementers suggested 0..1,
>     the use of log-scale didn't come up. So for no deeper reason that
>     consistency i'd then suggest we keep the same for term and
>     disambig confidence scores, unless there is a pressing reason to
>     do otherwise.
>
>     cheers,
>     Dave
>
>
>     4) I agree that in the current proposal it would not be reasonable
>     to add a confidence score as in multiple domain scenario it would
>     be misleading/wrong and it would require a different solution (For
>     instance, similar to how domains can be marked).
>
>
>
>     Best regards,
>     Mārcis ;o)
>
>     ________________________________________
>     No: Dave Lewis [dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie <mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>]
>     Nosūtīts: otrdiena, 2012. gada 13. novembrī 19:30
>     Kam: Multilingual Web LT Public List
>     Tēma: 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.
>
>     so.....
>
>     Proposal:
>     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.
>
>     cheers,
>     Dave
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 09:56:26 UTC

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