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

[Minutes] MLW-LT WG call 2012-11-26

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 19:14:17 +0100
Message-ID: <50B3B179.9080203@w3.org>
To: "public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
are at http://www.w3.org/2012/11/26-mlw-lt-minutes.html and below as 
text. I tried to clean up the minutes a bit, please check if I got 
everything right.




       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                                mlw-lt WG

26 Nov 2012


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Nov/0210.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2012/11/26-mlw-lt-irc


           Jirka, Ankit, dF, Yves, felix, daveL, kfritsche,
           DomJones, Des, leroy, omstefanov, pnietoca, Christian,
           philr, chrLi, Pedro, Arle, mdelolmo, milan

           Naoto, Jörg




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Test suite
          2. [6]Drop localization quality precis
          3. [7]Closing ISSUE-42 tools information
          4. [8]Actions needed for the LC draft
          5. [9]Editing calls Tue - Wed
          6. [10]Stability of quality issue types
          7. [11]AOB
          8. [12]EU PROJECT SPECIFIC
      * [13]Summary of Action Items

Test suite


      [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-tests/2012Nov/0071.html

    fsasaki: What is the nature of the second milestone?
    ... can you summarize?

    <fsasaki> see milestones also at

      [15] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgIk0-aoSKOadG5HQmJDT2EybWVvVC1VbnF5alN2S3c#gid=0

    DomJones1: M2 is less formal
    ... M3 and on are stronger, more formal

    Yves_: nothing to add to Dom's summary

    philr: I would have approached it in a meaningfully different
    ... does everybody need to implement all the categories?

    fsasaki: the minimum is 2 implementations that produce the test
    suite output
    ... as discussed, it is for demonstrating interoperability
    ... we need the extra effort of interop testing to show that
    the implementations do the same across scenarios


      [16] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgIk0-aoSKOadG5HQmJDT2EybWVvVC1VbnF5alN2S3c#gid=0

    fsasaki: the recorded commitments are for the test suite

    <DomJones1> ack

    philr: are there strong rulings re parsing methods?

    fsasaki: there are no such rules, just input and output files,
    no questions for your methodology in between

    <omstefanov> will there be any independent running of these

    <chriLi> +queue

    leroy: people asked if they can modify test suite files
    ... can correct obvious errors, but discuss anything other
    before changing

    chriLi: more general question, any decision for using test
    case, mandate for use cases?

    <omstefanov> +omstefanov

    <fsasaki> [17]http://www.w3.org/2012/09/mlw-lt-charter.html

      [17] http://www.w3.org/2012/09/mlw-lt-charter.html

    <omstefanov> +queue

    fsasaki: test suite is w3c requirement
    ... CR phase should start in March
    ... test suite is critical for proving interoperability during
    ... any other questions?

    Des: question on timing..
    ... I could not do it within the publicly given time frame

    fsasaki: are you referring to your implementation effort?

    Des: yes

    fsasaki: Do not worry, with exception of LQ Precis, all
    categories are covered by other commitments
    ... continue contributing tests

    <DomJones1> Wanted to ask / minute that if any implementors
    have any issues with keeping to test-suite dates could they
    please let Dominic know as soon as possible. This way we can
    work with you to match resources and the time frame.

    <scribe> ACTION: Felix to nudge data category owners asking for
    test suite contributions by the end of the year [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-319 - Nudge data category owners
    asking for test suite contributions by the end of the year [on
    Felix Sasaki - due 2012-12-03].

Drop localization quality precis


      [19] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#lqprecis

    checking of global rules did not progress

    <fsasaki> "100 (inclusive) with higher values indicating a
    better score"


      [20] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgIk0-aoSKOadG5HQmJDT2EybWVvVC1VbnF5alN2S3c#gid=0

    fsasaki: It is hard to read, contains nested rules, not enough
    work here, not enough test suite commitments
    ... only Vistatec and UL committing to test this, this is thin
    ... looking for a champion, no need to actually edit the spec,
    but needs work on exact specification text

    philr: I feel it has a role to play
    ... there was a vision for far reaching mechanism, eventually
    ... I am not up to speed with tool ref, which might be the
    ... I will try my best to move this by the end of this week
    ... I agree it must be dropped if little progress this week

    fsasaki: E.g. readiness was dropped due to lack of consensus
    ... this might mean tabling till the 2.1

    <fsasaki> ACTION: phil to work on lq precis to see if we can
    keep it in the spec [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-320 - Work on lq precis to see if we
    can keep it in the spec [on Phil Ritchie - due 2012-12-03].

    Arle: offering help to philr to work on the category by the end
    of this week

    philr: accepting help offer..

    <Jirka> yep

    fsasaki: creating action 320

    Jirka: Should I add it to the schema?

    fsasaki: This cannot wait for the next week because Jirla is
    working on the normative schema
    ... we would need hard commitment or drop it
    ... results by tomorrow, or so.., would that work if you get
    results be wednesday, Jirka?

    philr: wed lunch time?

    <Jirka> yep, wed is ok

    Arle and philr agreeing working time Wed morning, forming LQP
    task force

Closing ISSUE-42 tools information

    fsasaki: last mail from Yves

    Yves_: we need to have this attribute specified for some
    ... like mtConfidence
    ... thing getting hairy on the global side, becuase it can have
    different inheritance behavior to the category
    ... it might be OK on local level only, but you could not
    address attributes
    ... we might rule out a bunch of formats.. we seem to be
    running in circles

    fsasaki: another proposal by Dave

    daveL: scared by global rules here, i.e. agreement with Yves
    ... argument, you need it cases where schema cannot be changed,
    might not need it anyway

    <chriLi> What's the reference to Yves' mail?

    daveL: local expression of tool ref might inherit to
    attributes, unclear if we say so.

    fsasaki: Can we close the issue as is

    Yves_: the caveat is that in mtConfdence you would need both
    global and local

    fsasaki: It would be soved with a note? we even do not need a

    Yves_: agreed

    <fsasaki> close issues-42

    <fsasaki> close issue-42

    <trackbot> ISSUE-42 Tool and confidence related information is
    similar for mtConfidence, textAnalysisAnnotation, quality


      [22] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/open

    felix: open topics are editorial isssues, and xliff mapping, so
    nothing that would prevent us from moving to last calls

    fsasaki: I formally invite people to express any issues with
    normative parts of the spec for LC

Actions needed for the LC draft

    <fsasaki> action-286?

    <trackbot> ACTION-286 -- Shaun McCance to put data category
    table into non-normative appendix in the spec -- due 2012-11-19
    -- OPEN


      [23] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/286

    <fsasaki> ACTION: felix to take over shauns action itemt on
    data category table [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-321 - Take over shauns action itemt
    on data category table [on Felix Sasaki - due 2012-12-03].

    fsasaki: taking over Shaun's action item to create data
    category table. Next action-297 Address Query Language related
    Ed notes in draft.

    <Jirka> done

    fsasaki: question about normativeness of schema
    ... RelaxNG is the normative
    ... XML schema will be mostly automatically generated,

    <fsasaki> action-314?

    <trackbot> ACTION-314 -- Yves Savourel to check global rules
    for provenance -- due 2012-11-27 -- CLOSED


      [25] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/314


      [26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Nov/0186.html

    fsasaki: Yves did that. Is there a need to chenge anything in
    the spec?

    Yves_: Looking at the examples.

    issues with mapping to XLIFF

    toolref and pointers cannot be mapped onto XLIFF

    <fsasaki> scribe: fsasaki

    davidF: if I map MT confidence to XLIFF
    ... and I don't know who produdced that
    ... I lost all information

    yves: not saying you cannot put the information
    ... but you cannot do that with a pointer

    dave: Yves is reffering to toolsRef
    ... have to think about that

    <dF> DaveL: the issue os with toolref in Provenace not the Tool
    Reference element

    dave: will look at it tonight, we can discuss at the call

    <scribe> scribe: dF

    UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: you are right that this might be the only
    major point for ponters, it might be otherwise good to get rid
    of pointers
    ... this will be adressed in the editting call totmorrow

    <fsasaki> ACTION: felix to make sure next call we discuss
    poiner issues for proveancne and toolsRef [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-322 - Make sure next call we discuss
    poiner issues for proveancne and toolsRef [on Felix Sasaki -
    due 2012-12-03].

    fsasaki: This is to make sure that the group has follow up to
    the editting call
    ... harmonization of interval 0-1 iclusive, mial posted by df


      [28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Nov/0202.html

    fsasaki: report on number of small changes to the spec
    ... is there someone on the call who was through them, or
    volunteers to go through them

    <fsasaki> ACTION: daveL to check edits at
    lt/2012Nov/0202.html [recorded in

      [29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Nov/0202.html

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-323 - Check edits at
    lt/2012Nov/0202.html [on David Lewis - due 2012-12-03].

      [31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Nov/0202.html

    Yves_: Id id not see anything controversial, covered everything
    but did not go into detail in all

Editing calls Tue - Wed

    taking roll call for the partcipation in edittting call Tue and

    <fsasaki> felix

    <Yves_> yves

    <Arle> Arle: Tuesday and Wednesday

    <kfritsche> kfritsche

    <fsasaki> dave

    <pnietoca> pnietoca

    <Jirka> jirka - probably tue, wed and thu

    <fsasaki> david: I can do the 1st hour tomorrow

    <fsasaki> .. and wednesday the call

    dF: I can make Wed

    fsasaki, start meeting with splitting up and fork parallel

    scribe: meeting agian in an hour or so.., depend on how many
    have editting set up

    daveL: might have issues with too many instances of goto, but
    might do also skype

    <chriLi> +queue

    fsasaki: editting can be done fully offline, the others can
    make a coffee break

    omstafanov: what about independent testing?

    fsasaki: what do you mean by independent?

    omstefanov: the tests are designed by implmeneters, does any
    one verify if ENLASO indeed conforms?

    fsasaki: the idea is that the tests and results are public
    ... it is OK to base test results on the same library across
    implementations, but this all will be reviewed by w3c mgmt

    omstefanov: thanks, this is answered..

    DomJones1: We hope that the transparent test suite will attract
    independent implementers (not now in the group)

    chriLi: ... I started going through the spec, normative and
    non-normative.. Is it a good time to post my commments on the
    non-normative part of the spec now?

    fsasaki: Christian is going through explanatory sections, but
    we only need to stabilize the normative parts now..
    ... about "what is the time for feedback on non-normative"
    parts: I would say as soon as possible, but it might just take
    after the last call draft publication before we come back to

Stability of quality issue types


      [32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Nov/0208.html

    fsasaki: Danile is impmenting this
    ... Arle, does this discussion reveal any changes?

    Arle: It does not require normative changes
    ... just explanatory

    fsasaki: discussion to continue on the list


    fsasaki: AOB? Nothing


    <Pedro> Felix, can you on the micro

    The mlw-lt call is adjourned, but everybody can stay, no secret
    discussion here

    The following is only important for the LT-Web partners, re end
    of year report

    <fsasaki> nieves.sande@dfki.de arle, felix

    fsasaki: send everything to the memberlist, and put Nieves,
    Arle, and Felix three people into CC. NIeves will put the
    presentatinos and other material into the presentations
    archive, see link below. Send not only outreach material, but
    also slides etc.


      [33] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Presentations_archive

    <chriLi> We mentioned www.multilingualweb.eu in tcWorld 2012

      [34] http://conferences.tekom.de/fileadmin/tx_doccon/slides/115_Highlights_Holes_in_and_Hopes_for_the_Multilingual_Web_.pdf

    <fsasaki> yes, chriLi, above presentation counts too.

    fsasaki: It is good to include stuff by not funded parties

    fsasaki: Arle is going to preopare an HTML webpage for the

    Pedro: we need more homogeneity in the report
    ... we should get a template, so that the content is easily

    <fsasaki> ACTION: arle to create template for report [recorded

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-324 - Create template for report [on
    Arle Lommel - due 2012-12-03].

    Arle: It will be OK if you stick to basic HTML, we can style it
    with CSS

    Pedro: timeframe for LC publication?

    <fsasaki> this will be the URI of the draft. Publication date
    will be 6 December:

      [36] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/

    fsasaki: the time frame of the LC is early next week, I can
    give you the URI now, see above
    ... AOB?
    ... adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: arle to create template for report [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: daveL to check edits at
    lt/2012Nov/0202.html [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: felix to make sure next call we discuss poiner
    issues for proveancne and toolsRef [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Felix to nudge data category owners asking for
    test suite contributions by the end of the year [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: felix to take over shauns action itemt on data
    category table [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: phil to work on lq precis to see if we can keep
    it in the spec [recorded in

      [38] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Nov/0202.html

    [End of minutes]

     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [44]scribe.perl version
     1.137 ([45]CVS log)
     $Date: 2012-11-26 18:11:44 $

      [44] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [45] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 26 November 2012 18:14:45 UTC

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