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

Re: Question on qi types (Fwd: Re: ITS 2.0 Acks)

From: Arle Lommel <arle.lommel@dfki.de>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:15:35 +0100
Message-Id: <BE23FEEE-D5BE-4669-AE9B-A0A102E46C20@dfki.de>
To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Hi Daniel,

Thanks for the input. It's always great to get this sort of careful attention. A few comments:

> * whitespace is described as "There is a mismatch in whitespace between
> source and target content." -> we use this when there's a whitespace
> problem in the text. We do have some rules which compare source and target
> text, but this one does not. I assume it still makes sense to use this
> type?

Can you give an example? I'm guessing that it does make sense, but a description might help. It may be that we need to revise the description we have since it could be that there are issues that appear in the target (like runs of spaces) where there is nothing to compare them to in the source (e.g., one source sentence = two target sentences and the extra space appears between the two, so there was no comparison point in the source).

> * Typos like "way" instead of "was", i.e. both legal words, are considered
> to be in "terminology". Is that correct? When we first talked about this I
> think it was mentioned that the first value from the table that fits should
> be selected (going from top to bottom). I cannot find that in the appendix
> now, maybe this should be mentioned explicitly?

We'll have to clarify. Way → was isn't a terminology error, but rather a typo. Using "pen drive" instead of "USB flash drive" would be a terminology error, since both can apply to the same thing and the "wrong" one was chosen. But general misspellings/typos etc. don't mean the wrong term was chosen, but rather that a mechanical error occurs in the text. So this point will need to be added explicitly in the terminology description. I will make sure to do that.

> * register is described as "The text is written in the wrong linguistic
> register of uses slang or other language variants inappropriate to the
> text" -> does this also refer to variants like British English vs. American
> English? If so, it should maybe added as an example, as this might be quite
> common.

It is not an issue of register, so I would say that "locale-violation" is the right one. In which case this requires another note in the table to clarify.


Received on Monday, 26 November 2012 09:16:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:08:25 UTC