W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > February 2013

Re: [All] review draft agenda, preparation call 1 March 1-3 p.m. UTC (Friday this week)

From: Declan Groves <dgroves@computing.dcu.ie>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:25:43 +0000
Message-ID: <CAOi_1PampmCpo4gLO2pKVmwWxwoRRW6OuGgCBDqpHD2quhBhhA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Cc: "Pedro L. Díez Orzas" <pedro.diez@linguaserve.com>, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>, public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org, dave lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>, Clemens Weins <Clemens.Weins@cocomore.com>, Phil Ritchie <philr@vistatec.ie>, Ankit Srivastava <asrivastava@computing.dcu.ie>, Arle Lommel <Arle.Lommel@dfki.de>
Felix,

w.r.t. ensuring everyone's contribution is covered - I think the agenda
should only mention those that are speaking/presenting, otherwise it will
become far too cluttered.

Contributions from various partners can then be mentioned in the slides
(e.g. on the title slide or on any slides dealing with showcases) which
should be enough to illustrate the cross-collaborations.

Declan


On 27 February 2013 10:32, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi Pedro,
>
> thanks. I have updated the review agenda, see
>
> http://www.w3.org/**International/multilingualweb/**
> lt/wiki/Rome-lux-prep#Draft_**agenda<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Rome-lux-prep#Draft_agenda>
> open points are:
>
> - how to cover enrycher which is input for Enlaso and Cocomore? I think it
> would be important to have JSI / Tadej on the agenda. Thoughts?
> - need to make sure that Lucy' contribution is covered, but Pedro will do
> that. Should we reflect it on the agenda?
> - same for moravia - Dave / David, will you cover Milan?
> - who would cover Jirka / validation?
> - how to cover Adobe / ]init[ / Logrus / Tilde?
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>
> Am 27.02.13 11:15, schrieb Pedro L. Díez Orzas:
>
>  Thank you Felix,
>>
>> Also it can be simplified technical demos/business scenario, so each demo
>> is organized by the participants internally. It makes it shorter and faster:
>>
>> Showcase:
>>         Technical demo (one or more participant)
>>         Business usage scenario
>>
>> I confirm I can Friday  1st March 13.00 UTC.
>> Best,
>> Pedro
>>
>> -----Mensaje original-----
>> De: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
>> Enviado el: miércoles, 27 de febrero de 2013 10:10
>> Para: "Pedro L. Díez Orzas"
>> CC: 'Yves Savourel'; public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.**org<public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>;
>> 'dave lewis'; 'Clemens Weins'; 'Phil Ritchie'; 'Ankit Srivastava'; 'Arle
>> Lommel'
>> Asunto: Re: [All] review draft agenda, preparation call 1 March 1-3 p.m.
>> UTC (Friday this week)
>>
>> Hi Pedro, what you say makes a lot of sense. I will revisit the agenda
>> now and we can discuss it today at the call. All, if you cannot
>> participate: does Friday this week work for you? I didn't see anybody
>> protesting, but I'm not sure if this is because everybody prefers 1 March
>> over 8 March for the prep call, or if people didn't see the mail ;)
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Felix
>>
>> Am 26.02.13 21:09, schrieb Pedro L. Díez Orzas:
>>
>>> Hi Felix, Yves, all,
>>>
>>> Just two things:
>>>
>>> 1) The Selected usage scenarios "Pedro: ITS2.0 Implementation Experience
>>> in HTML5 with the SpanishTax Agency (WP3, WP4)" is only about WP4, not wp3.
>>> I will use a base the presentation in Rome and adapt to Lux (in Roma is the
>>> client who present it).
>>>
>>> 2) About merging agenda, I think Yves is right. We could organize each
>>> case from two different points of view, technical and business. For
>>> example, for two demos of WP3 and WP4:
>>>
>>> TMS-CMS (WP3):
>>>         Technical demo 1: Cocomore
>>>         Technical demo 2: Linguaserve
>>>         Business usage scenario: Hans v. Freyberg: Standardization for
>>> the
>>> Multilingual Web: A Driver of Business Opportunities
>>>
>>> Online Translation System (WP4):
>>>         Technical demo 1: Linguaserve
>>>         Technical demo 2: DCU
>>>         Technical demo 3: Lucy
>>>         Business usage scenario: Pedro: ITS2.0 Implementation Experience
>>> in
>>> HTML5 with the SpanishTax Agency
>>>
>>> ... etc
>>>
>>> Just my two cents.
>>> Pedro
>>>
>>>    ______________________________**______
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Mensaje original-----
>>> De: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org] Enviado el: martes, 26 de
>>> febrero de 2013 18:08
>>> Para: Yves Savourel
>>> CC: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.**org<public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>;
>>> 'dave lewis'; 'Clemens Weins'; "''Pedro L. Díez Orzas''"; 'Phil Ritchie';
>>> 'Ankit Srivastava'; 'Arle Lommel'
>>> Asunto: Re: [All] review draft agenda, preparation call 1 March 1-3
>>> p.m. UTC (Friday this week)
>>>
>>> Am 26.02.13 18:03, schrieb Yves Savourel:
>>>
>>>> These two
>>>>> [
>>>>> •  Pedro: ITS2.0 Implementation Experience in HTML5 with the
>>>>> SpanishTax Agency (WP3, WP4) •  Hans v. Freyberg: Standardization
>>>>> for the Multilingual
>>>>> Web: A Driver of Business Opportunities (WP3)]
>>>>>
>>>>> Are focusing on "business value". I thought that your presentation
>>>>> and Phil might do the same ... but I'm not sure if that would work for
>>>>> you?
>>>>> Thoughts from you, Phil or others?
>>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the pointer Felix.
>>>>
>>>> I guess I'm trying to get a sense of the difference between the demos
>>>> in the morning and those talks in the afternoon. In both cases they seem to
>>>> be strictly based on the use cases.
>>>>
>>>> So those afternoon presentations would be more an outline of the
>>>> business aspects of the use cases? Aren't we risking to repeat ourselves a
>>>> bit between the morning and afternoon session?
>>>>
>>>> Would it make sense to have longer session for each, that would include
>>>> the business part and then the demo part as an illustration, and have a few
>>>> the morning and a few the afternoon? That is instead of having case A demo,
>>>> case B demo, etc. on the morning and then case A business, case B business
>>>> in the afternoon, to have: case A business + demo in the morning and case B
>>>> business + demo in the afternoon.
>>>>
>>>> (I'm just thinking aloud... not that we should change anything).
>>>>
>>> This is a good thought, Yves. I hadn't the repition aspect in mind.
>>> Let's see what others think - if there is no disagreement I'd then merge
>>> the agenda in just "usage scenario" presentations.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Felix
>>>
>>>> -yves
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>


-- 
*Dr. Declan Groves
Research Integration Officer
Centre for Next Generation Localisation (CNGL)
Dublin City University

email: dgroves@computing.dcu.ie <dgroves@computing.dcu.ie>
 phone: +353 (0)1 700 6906*
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 11:26:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 9 June 2013 00:25:08 UTC