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: Pedro L. Díez Orzas <pedro.diez@linguaserve.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:41:37 +0100
To: "'Felix Sasaki'" <fsasaki@w3.org>
Cc: "'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>
Message-ID: <0fd701ce14f0$2a307b50$7e9171f0$@linguaserve.com>
Thank you Felix, 

But I would not organize it by partner:

" 11.00: Technical Demonstrations and Business scenarios (part 1) 
Cocomore (Clemens Weins + Hans v. Freyberg). 
Linguaserve (Pedro L. Díez Orzas). 
ENLASO (Yves Savourel), Linguaserve (Pedro), VistaTEC (Phil)"

But, by WPX/Showcase:

"11.00: Technical Demonstrations and Business scenarios (part 1) 

WP3/CMS-TMS Cocomore-Linguaserve:
	- Technical (Clemens Weins + Pedro)
	- Business (Hans v. Freyberg). 

WP4/ Online TS Linguaserve-DCU-Lucysoftware 
	- Technical (Pedro-Ankit/Declan-Daniel/Pedro). 
	- Business (Pedro L. Díez Orzas)
...."

Since for instance, showing only the part from Cocomore, without the roundtrip does not make sense; or showing the Online TS without MT neither.

Best,
Pedro


-----Mensaje original-----
De: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org] 
Enviado el: miércoles, 27 de febrero de 2013 11:33
Para: "Pedro L. Díez Orzas"
CC: 'Yves Savourel'; 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,

thanks. I have updated the review agenda, see

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; '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; '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
>>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 13:42:05 UTC

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