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: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:43:10 +0100
Message-ID: <512E0D6E.3020701@w3.org>
To: "Pedro L. Díez Orzas" <pedro.diez@linguaserve.com>
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>
Agree, let's dicuss this at the call briefly, if we find time.

- Felix

Am 27.02.13 14:41, schrieb Pedro L. Díez Orzas:
> 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 13:43:42 UTC

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