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

RE: [ACTION-311]: Check with group about harmonization of interval values - mtconfidence, disambiguation, locquality issue, loc precis

From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 14:06:09 -0700
To: <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <assp.067483a5ba.assp.067425eb55.003601cdc9be$5cdcb5f0$169621d0$@com>
Hi David, all,

> ...@Owners of mtconfidence, disambiguation, locquality issue, loc precis, please 
> react and state weather the above approach is OK for specifying <0;1> rational 
> intervals as values for your data category.

For Localization Quality Issue: the value, unlike the other data categories noted above, is not a 'confidence' measure, but a severity indicator.
In most implementations this information is often represented with a set of fixed values (e.g. "note, warning, error", "low, medium, high, critical", etc.), so the ITS value will often be just a matter of mapping.
Also unlike the 'confidence' values where the higher values are "better", for this data category the lower values are "better".

So I don't think there is a case to change the current 0-100 range to a "confidence"-like 0-1.

At some point several months ago we decided to go from integer to decimal to allow more precision and potential avoid round-trip lose in some cases.
The text is currently up-to-date as far as referring to "... rational number in the interval 0 to 100 inclusive. The value follows the XML Schema decimal data type with the constraining facets minInclusive set to 0 and maxInclusive set to 100." So that part is done.

cheers,
-yves
Received on Friday, 23 November 2012 21:07:08 UTC

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