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

[Minutes] Prague f2f (draft) and Monday call

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 20:58:33 +0100
Message-ID: <510586E9.5010609@w3.org>
To: "public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Hi all,

minutes of the Prague f2f are at

http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html
http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html

and below as text (search for "DAY1" and "DAY2" in this mail). During 
the Monday call we will go through the minutes / issues step by step, 
just to give people (esp. who have not been at the meeting) an 
opportunity to say whether they have additional comments on resolutions 
and open issues.

I very likely can't be on the call, but please do the boring review of 
issues and use the call to bring your opinion to the table - better now 
than later :)


Issues that need a follow up & discussion in the group are:

- regex for allowed characters
https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/67
https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/105
thanks a lot to Shaun for the regex review; now waiting for the "regex 
subset validation" regex.

- NIF comments
https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/72

- disambiguation vs. terminology
https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/67

- ruby and directionality related comments, see issues mentioned at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0144.html

For others a lot of action items and edits need to be done, but before 
that has happened there is nothing to review for the group.

The main aim of the call should be to find out
- does the group think that we have missed issues?
- do you agree with all resolutions achieved at the f2f?
- do you have opinions on above open issues?

Best,

Felix

=====
DAY1
=====

    [1]W3C

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

                                - DRAFT -

                                MLW-LT f2f

23 Jan 2013

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/PragueJan2013f2f#Agenda

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Yves, Marcis, leroy, Ankit, Arle, dave, pnietoca,
           mdelolmo, Karl, swalter, dF, truedesheim, felix, milan,
           christan(remote 10-11), tadej, jirka, Pedro (remote 2-3
           p.m.)

    Regrets
    Chair
           felix

    Scribe
           fsasaki, daveL, Yves, Arle

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]roll call
          2. [6]http://tinyurl.com/its20-comments-handling
          3. [7]issue-67
          4. [8]issue-69
          5. [9]issue-70
          6. [10]issue-71
          7. [11]ISSUE-72 NIF comment
          8. [12]issue-68
          9. [13]issue-75
         10. [14]issue-73
         11. [15]issue-74
         12. [16]issue-72
         13. [17]issue-76
         14. [18]issue-77
         15. [19]issue-76 again
         16. [20]issue-78
         17. [21]issue-79
         18. [22]issue-80
         19. [23]issue-81
         20. [24]issue-82
         21. [25]case related comments
         22. [26]ISSUE-84
         23. [27]ISSUE-86
         24. [28]meeting schedule
         25. [29]Last workshop
         26. [30]posters
         27. [31]Issues
         28. [32]issue-88
         29. [33]issue-92
         30. [34]Issue-93
         31. [35]Issue-94
         32. [36]issue-95
         33. [37]issue-98
         34. [38]issue-100
         35. [39]issue-104
         36. [40]issue-106 and issue-107
         37. [41]issue-108 and issue-109
         38. [42]locale filtering question
         39. [43]test suite check
         40. [44]RFC statements
         41. [45]test suite
         42. [46]requirements doc
      * [47]Summary of Action Items
      __________________________________________________________

roll call

    <fsasaki> checking attendance ...

[48]http://tinyurl.com/its20-comments-handling

      [48] http://tinyurl.com/its20-comments-handling

    <fsasaki>
    [49]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Pra
    gueJan2013f2f#Agenda

      [49] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/PragueJan2013f2f#Agenda

    <daveL> scribe daveL

issue-67

    <daveL> yves: had no feedback from shaun to date so we probably
    can't advance here

    <fsasaki> related:
    [50]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/i
    ssues/105

      [50] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/105

    <daveL> felix: comment could be addressed by dropping the ref
    to XML schema

    <daveL> yves: will respond on issue 105

issue-69

    <fsasaki> related:
    [51]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/i
    ssues/69

      [51] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/69

    <pnietoca> External rules may also have links to other external
    rules (see example 20). The linking mechanism is recursive, and
    subsequently after the processing the rules MUST be read
    top-down (see example 21).

    <fsasaki>
    [52]http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#link-external-
    rules

      [52] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#link-external-rules

    <daveL> pablo: had responded that this was clear in the
    specification, but suggest a clarification

    <pnietoca> the section is 5.4. (last paragraph)

    <daveL> felix: confirms this is just a clarification

    <pnietoca> change it

    <fsasaki> "The linking mechanism is recursive" > "The linking
    mechanism is recursive in a depth-first approach"

    <daveL> tadej: perhaps explain this recursion as being 'depth
    first' to be understandable more by computer scientists

issue-70

    <fsasaki> related:
    [53]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/i
    ssues/70

      [53] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/70

    <daveL> felix: ref to section 5.5

    <fsasaki>
    [54]http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#selection-prec
    edence

      [54] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#selection-precedence

    <fsasaki> will add one entry between "global selections" and
    "data category defaults" for inherited information, but not
    specific to local markup

issue-71

    <fsasaki> related:
    [55]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/i
    ssues/71

      [55] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/71

    <fsasaki> annotatorsRef

    <fsasaki> scribe: fsasaki

    daveL: Yves said the problem is: you can have a lot of
    annotatorRefs
    ... issue is: how to deal with annotatorRefs with two instances
    of local standoff markup
    ... e.g. lq localization issues and provenacne records
    ... so you can have multiple records of the same data category
    applying to the same selection
    ... you don't get the information whether the information comes
    from different processes
    ... Yves suggested whether we can put the information into the
    same ...
    ... my view was: for provenacne annotator ref is not that
    important
    ... so in the mail last night: could we exlude the lqi and
    provenance from annotatorsRef
    ... annotatorRefs is telling you what provided the provenacne
    annotation

    tadej: from provenance it is not needed, but for lqi?

    dave: don't think so for lqissue.

    yves: sounds weird: have annotatorsRef mandatory for some data
    cats, possible for others, forbidden for two ...
    ... currently it is required for mt-confidence and
    disambiguation

    <Marcis> ... and Terminology

    yves: otehr solution: you could have it mandatory for these two
    data categories, and don't have it for others
    ... that would make things a lot simpler

    dave: agree - not having two features interacting (standoff and
    annotatorsRef) would be good

    felix potential resolution - so keep it mandatory for
    mt-confidence, disambiguation and term, and edit the list of
    data category items in the spec

    <scribe> scribe: daveL

    <fsasaki> ACTION: dLewis6 to come back to chase and kevin about
    discussion of issue-71
    [56]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-irc#T08-34-49 recorded
    in
    [57]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action01]

      [56] http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-irc#T08-34-49

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-388 - Come back to chase and kevin
    about discussion of issue-71
    [58]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-irc#T08-34-49 on David
    Lewis - due 2013-01-30].

      [58] http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-irc#T08-34-49

    <fsasaki> ACTION: felix to change example
    [59]http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#EX-its-tool-an
    notation-1 if the agree on issue-71 , see discussion at
    [60]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-irc#T08-34-49 recorded
    in
    [61]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action02]

      [59] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#EX-its-tool-annotation-1
      [60] http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-irc#T08-34-49

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-389 - Change example
    [62]http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#EX-its-tool-an
    notation-1 if the agree on issue-71 , see discussion at
    [63]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-irc#T08-34-49 on Felix
    Sasaki - due 2013-01-30].

      [62] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#EX-its-tool-annotation-1
      [63] http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-irc#T08-34-49

    felix: example 28 needs to be revised also, will do this now

    <fsasaki> scribe: fsasaki

    daveL: using the example in the test file - should we have
    usage of the data categories in the elements?

    yves: yes

    <daveL> dave: this example doesn't actually include the data
    category attributes to which the annotatorRef refers

    <daveL> felix: makes note that the test file and the example
    should be revised to include this

    yves: we don't have annotatorsRef for all disambiguation
    examples

    <daveL> yves: we don't have annotatorRef in all examples of
    disambiguation

    <scribe> ACTION: tadej to check disambiguation examples with
    regards to presence of annotatorsRef [recorded in
    [64]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-390 - Check disambiguation examples
    with regards to presence of annotatorsRef [on Tadej ¦tajner -
    due 2013-01-30].

ISSUE-72 NIF comment

    <daveL> felix: comment was which version of NIF do we refer to

    [65]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
    lt-comments/2013Jan/0015.html

      [65] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0015.html

    <daveL> .. there are 1.0 and 2.0

    <daveL> .. also there stabilit was raises

    <daveL> ... and Christian also raised whether the mapping was
    canonical

    <daveL> dF: it may be a useful clarification for implementators

    <daveL> felix: but its not clear what is meant by 'canonical
    XML' in this case

    <daveL> tadej: it implied there should be a canonical XML
    serialisation

    <daveL> felix: would such a requirement raise a bar for
    implementors, this need to be dicussed further on the lists

    <daveL> felix: now will attempt to dial in Christian

issue-68

    <scribe> scribe: fsasaki

    marcis: there was a discussion on ITS term and disambiguation
    ... christian brought it up, various comments from the WG
    ... david suggested that we should not break ITS1.0, but felix
    said it is not necessary to have it

    <daveL> marcis: summarises discussion

    <daveL>
    [66]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
    lt-comments/2013Jan/0152.html

      [66] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0152.html

    daveF: don't break it if it works
    ... that's the bottom line
    ... we want to keep also independence of features

    marcis: I could implement terminology independent of the rest
    of disambiugation
    ... the question is: if we agree to change something, it is
    independent, so different question
    ... david suggested to have a bp document that specifies how
    things relate

    daveF: there are seperate use cases for disambiguation and
    terminology
    ... things are backed by different use cases, also from the
    implementers point of view

    felix: we can also depcreate one of these

    tadej: if we want to annotate the same fragment - which one to
    choose?

    marcis: that is the biggest problem
    ... we cannot do both
    ... there was a comment from yves, we should break larger
    problems into smaller ones
    ... so even if we have an "upper level" data category which we
    could then use for both scenarios

    tadej: we could use the same trip we did with annotators ref,
    e.g. using multiple values in the same attribute
    ... not sure if we would encourage people to do this
    ... complex, but same level of complexity as ...
    ... another solution tadej suggested was to have many
    attributes , but that's the same as having everything in one
    attribute
    ... if we can come up with a closed set of types of annotation,
    that's a solution
    ... but that needs to be a closed set, since we are specifying
    attributes
    ... right now for disambiguation we agreed for three levels:
    concept, entity, lexicon

    marcis: there is no definition for each of these levels, e.g.
    what is a lexical concept?
    ... I saw that there is a terminology inconcistency
    ... terminology is not used always in the same way in the
    disambiguation description

    daveL: the issue in using both of them for the same term - we
    are not clear how to combine them?

    tadej: it is not an issue at the moment
    ... if you fold it in one data category, it becomes a problem

    <chriLi> queue

    daveF: a big system will have a terminology life cycle with
    many manual people, but it is an automatic workflow

    daveL: aim of disambiguation is that it would make the output
    of automatic annotation available

    christian: thanks to marcis for putting everything into a
    condensed form
    ... there are we with the discussion today: my understanding is
    the following:
    ... people think it is not a bad idea to try to come up with a
    data category that can subsume what ITS2 terminology and ITS2
    disambiguation try to cover
    ... with respect to paying attention to ITS1: situation is that
    there is no need to go for backwards compatibility
    ... one way to achieve soft transition would be to deprecate
    existing ITS term
    ... one way to come up with the upper level data category: two
    implementation suggestions were made: based on attrbiute values
    and distinct values for annotation types
    ... this is how I understand the current state of the
    discussion
    ... I'm wondering what the next step would be
    ... to say: we realize that we want to really look into this
    change
    ... and want to do something to the current draft
    ... if this wants to be driven it could be done via mail or a
    seperate call
    ... need to agree on the approach

    <daveL> scrie: daveL

    <daveL> scribe: daveL

    felix: we have agreement that backward compatability isn't an
    absolute barrier
    ... but it is in my view desirable

    Christian: fully agree

    felix: another point is trying in general to reduce level of
    substantive change
    ... another point is experience of people who implement and
    knwo users of its1.0 terminology
    ... such as yves and OKAPI community

    yves: not necessarily a big problem to change but would like to
    keep backward compatibility in general

    tadej: suggested changes would break backward compatibility

    macis: potetnially we add complexity to terminology by
    including link to external ontology or other lexical resource

    df: agrees

    felix: compromise is having an umbrella data category, and
    allow term to stay the same

    <fsasaki> arle: agree with marcis

    marcis: have some questionns about the definition of
    disambiguation, e.g. the meaning of what is a lexical concept

    christian: support having an umbrella data category that would
    not increase complexity of seaprate term and disambiguation use
    case
    ... also we will get better uptake if we can offer an easier
    route to marking up the output of text analysis
    ... rather than having to support the more complex issues in
    disambiguation

    tadej: the reason for defining granularities was the major
    requirements of linguists, it was not sufficient to have this
    all in the target external data structure
    ... so even granularity definition was a compromise

    arle: the term 'granularity' may also be an issue

    tadej: was previously 'disambiguation type', but it was
    difficult to find the right term

    felxi: asks tadej, marcis, christan to come up with a proposal
    that allows for both use cases and consider backward
    comatibility for term?
    ... but this would need to be done by the end of next week?

    <Arle> Without putting too much thought into it, would
    disambiguationClassType work? Would this always correspond to a
    description of the kind of disambiguationClass intended?

    christian: happy to let marcis and tadej to try and draft
    something over these two days and then I can dial in again to
    discuss it further

    marcis: asks who was originator of disambig

    tadej: originally it was a named entity recoginiser category,
    but after discussion also became merged with diasambiguation
    afteter discussion with linguasev and others

    marcis: could we have a cascading model, since named entity can
    be composite

    <chriLi> Don't forget to bring the beer bottles to the room as
    well :-)

    daveL: note this overlaps with issue-109 on disambiguation in
    indic languages

issue-75

    <fsasaki>
    [67]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
    lt-comments/2013Jan/0143.html

      [67] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0143.html

    felix: jorge as shepard has produced a summary of this topic

    christian: my domain comment had three parts
    ... one main point - was looking for a way for providing to
    meta-data on a domain without pointing to resource, this has no
    eyyt been resolved
    ... another point was that domain meta-data is processor
    specific
    ... so in one world it is called x then the context in which x
    is meaningful needs to be provided

    <fsasaki>
    [68]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
    lt-comments/2013Jan/0136.html

      [68] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0136.html

    christian: now jorge has resolved point 2b, but the baove has
    still also to be resolved

    felix: felt adding this context meta was a new feature but
    could be reolved with a note that this relates to a single
    engine use case

    <fsasaki>
    [69]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/p
    roducts/9

      [69] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/products/9

    christian; broadly agrees such a note would satisfy him, since
    in ITS the focus was on scenarios with a single engine
    scenario. But this need to be made clear as an assumption in
    ITS2.0

    felix: have now started collacting items on tracker categories
    as 'not addressed in ITS2.0'

issue-73

    felix: so if larger implementors, e.g. sap, adobe, ms, will but
    resoruces into the multiengine scenario we could consider it,
    other we should stick with making explicit the single engine
    context

    <fsasaki>
    [70]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
    lt-comments/2013Jan/0015.html

      [70] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0015.html

    felix: with NIF the stability is an issue and will refer back
    to sebastian Helleman about the plan for this
    ... need this information to react fully to this comment
    ... other comment was how the mapping could benefit from
    canonical definiition of mapping
    ... so my comment is whether this would be of use to
    implementors, since in the room there was a lot of
    familiarisation with the use and benefits of canonicalisation

    christian: asks do we have more than one implementation

    felix: confirms we have one from sebastian and one from felix

    christian: I brought this up to ensure that whenever NIF
    processing is ensured, we end up with the same representation,
    and this needs normalisation and canonicalisation
    ... if not, then we may end up with versions that are
    incompatible

    felix: asks whether some comparison between document in NIF is
    an likely use case. would the comparison not takeplace back in
    the document itself

    christian: I think you would need a unicode normalisation

    felix: but this was related to regex in another data category

    christian: if we are reocmmending normalisation anyway in this
    other data category, could we not use this to solve the problem
    here

issue-74

    <fsasaki> scribe: fsasaki

    daveL: christian provided some bullet point comments
    ... are you planning more re-writing
    ... or should david and I take your comments in?

    christian: if it would be ok with you
    ... I could turn the bullet points that people could read
    ... with respect with the general approach
    ... I could do editing of the doc
    ... by mid next week

    [71]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/a
    ctions/377

      [71] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/377

    that would be action-377

    davidF: that's clarificatory stutt, not very urgent
    ... will wait for christian for a more readable version

    felix: so we have discusesed all comments from christian

    felix wil put thoughts on NIF in a mail

    <scribe> scribe: Yves_

    <scribe> Scribe: Yves_

issue-72

    <fsasaki> original comment here
    [72]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
    lt-comments/2013Jan/0013.html

      [72] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0013.html

    <fsasaki> .. see "Section 8.12 (Provenance Data Category)"

    daveL: Provenance issue is about timestamp
    ... quite complex to implement
    ... e.g when the information is capture, etc.
    ... This is covered by the PROV standard
    ... and we have a mechanism to point to that
    ... so no need in ITS

    <fsasaki> yves: so has the order of provenance a meaning?

    daveL: so order SHOULD reflect the order things were added in
    the document

    original commentor got a reply and we are waiting for a
    response. comment was rejected.

issue-76

    Arle: need to re-look at it

issue-77

    Jirka: proposal for a solution is in the issue's note.
    ... question was about HTML and rules precedence

    Jirka: no need to change anything
    ... link is the same as link in global rules

    <fsasaki> resolution proposal - see note from jirka Kosek, 22
    Jan 2013, 22:58:35 at
    [73]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/is
    sues/77

      [73] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/77

    Marcis: my comment was that it was difficult to understand how
    things work
    ... because it's defined in multiple places

    felix: in section 6.4 there are some explanation
    ... we would add Jirka's clarification there
    ... this would define the inheritance behavior

    jirka: maybe issue is that global rules need to be read in
    document order

    <fsasaki> "Global selections in documents (using mechanism of
    external global rules or inline global rules)" > "Global
    selections in documents (using mechanism of external global
    rules or inline global rules), to be processed in document
    order"

    <fsasaki> "Global selections in documents (using mechanism of
    external global rules or inline global rules)" > "Global
    selections in documents (using mechanism of external global
    rules or inline global rules), to be processed in document
    order, see section 5.2.1 for details "

    Felix: could point to 5.2.1 in the HTML section
    ... let's close this issue. See the note in the issue page.

    <fsasaki> ACTION: jirka to make edit for issue-77 [recorded in
    [74]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action04]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-391 - Make edit for issue-77 [on
    Jirka Kosek - due 2013-01-30].

issue-76 again

    Arle: an implementer was looking at issue's type
    ... and saw inconsistency

    <fsasaki> original comment at
    [75]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
    lt-comments/2013Jan/0026.html

      [75] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0026.html

    Arle: solution would be to change the definition
    ... add "or text is translated inconsistently"
    ... and a second example.

    <Arle> Proposed change: The text is inconsistent within itself
    or text is translated inconsistently (NB: not for use with
    terminology inconsistency).

    <Arle> Add second example: The translated text uses different
    wording for a single regulatory notice in the source that
    occurs multiple times in a series of manuals.

    <fsasaki> change in this sec
    [76]http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#lqissue-typeva
    lues

      [76] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#lqissue-typevalues

    <scribe> ACTION: arle to make the edit for issue 76 [recorded
    in
    [77]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action05]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-392 - Make the edit for issue 76 [on
    Arle Lommel - due 2013-01-30].

issue-78

    Felix: rel-type was registered, no more action is needed.

    Felix: wrote a reply to that comment

issue-79

    <fsasaki>
    [78]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
    lt-comments/2013Jan/0145.html

      [78] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0145.html

    Felix: added text indicating namespace prefix can be difference
    than its if it exists already

    Jirka: this just duplicate information. not good
    ... the initial text should already address the comment

    <fsasaki> "The namespace URI that MUST be used by
    implementations of this specification is:" > "The namespace URI
    that MUST be used by XML-based implementations of this
    specification is:"

    Jirka: add only "XML-based" to implementation

    <fsasaki> ACTION: felix to go back to richard about new
    resolution for issue-79 [recorded in
    [79]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action06]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-393 - Go back to richard about new
    resolution for issue-79 [on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-01-30].

issue-80

    Felix: we can just add links to example

    <scribe> ACTION: felix to add links to examples for issue 80
    [recorded in
    [80]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action07]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-394 - Add links to examples for issue
    80 [on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-01-30].

issue-81

    <fsasaki>
    [81]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
    lt-comments/2013Jan/0071.html

      [81] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0071.html

    felix: related to issue-89

    <fsasaki>
    [82]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
    lt-comments/2013Jan/0066.html

      [82] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0066.html

    Felix: issue is not clear how HTML maps to ITS
    ... some HTML construct are explicitely mapped, other are not
    ... like terminology (dfn, dt, etc.)
    ... should an implementer of HTML/ITS process those constructs
    as term? or not?

    <fsasaki>
    [83]http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-xml-i18n-bp-20080213/

      [83] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-xml-i18n-bp-20080213/

    <fsasaki>
    [84]http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-xml-i18n-bp-20080213/#relati
    ng-its-plus-xhtml

      [84] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-xml-i18n-bp-20080213/#relating-its-plus-xhtml

    Felix: Possible solution is a mapping defined in bets practice
    ... like we did in ITS 1.0
    ... we did this only as a best practice
    ... e.g. we don't talk about dfn in ITS 1.0
    ... for issue 81 we would not define normative relation to term
    ... but provide mapping in best practices document

    <fsasaki>
    [85]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
    lt-comments/2013Jan/0111.html

      [85] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0111.html

    Felix: related issue is issue-97
    ... some HTML features are used but not declared as such, like
    'translate'
    ... we should have something like "the ITS processor
    implementing Tranlsate MUST implement HTML5 translate
    attribute"

    See also note in issue-97

    Yves: this would resolve the issue

    <fsasaki> "the ITS processor implementing Tranlsate MUST
    implement HTML5 translate attribute" > "the ITS processor
    implementing Translate MUST implement HTML5 translate attribute
    in the same was as the ITS translate attribute for XML content"

    dF: we have a problem
    ... we don't have an its-translate equivalent

    Yves: we map to a functionality not an attribute
    ... like id or lang

    dF: we want to say HTML5 translate is the Translate local
    markup

    Yves: maybe we can re-use same text as for lang and id

    <kfritsche> "The recommended way to specify language
    identification is to use xml:lang in XML, and lang in HTML."

    Felix: for language we would need to say that lang has
    precedence

    <fsasaki> "If the attribute xml:id is present or id in HTML for
    the selected node, the value of the xml:id attribute or id in
    HTML MUST take precedence over the idValue value."

    <fsasaki> for lang info to be adapted to mention precedence of
    xml:lang and lang other langRule

    Felix: we don't have an issue for lang
    ... we would also need test cases
    ... if there are xml;lang and lang present, lang MUST take
    precedence
    ... we need a test case for it
    ... need to test xml:lang lang in a XHTML file

    [86]http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#C_7

      [86] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#C_7

    <scribe> ACTION: felix to check what of lang and xml;lang takes
    precedence [recorded in
    [87]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action08]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-395 - Check what of lang and xml;lang
    takes precedence [on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-01-30].

    <scribe> ACTION: ankit to create example for xml;lang / lang
    [recorded in
    [88]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action09]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-396 - Create example for xml;lang /
    lang [on Ankit Srivastava - due 2013-01-30].

    Yves: xml;lang seems to take precedence according:
    [89]http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#C_7

      [89] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#C_7

    <swalter> In HTML 5 the native HTML 5 translate attribute MUST
    be used to express the Translate data category.

    <fsasaki> issue-97 proposal

    <scribe> ACTION: yves to enter the new text for 97 (above)
    [recorded in
    [90]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action10]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-397 - Enter the new text for 97
    (above) [on Yves Savourel - due 2013-01-30].

    dF: I would table the dfn/dt issue before Term/Disambiguation
    is resolved

    Felix: think there are 2 type of content: clear relation (like
    id translate) and un-clear (dfn)

    Marcis: dfn is very narrow
    ... employed only in very restricted definition
    ... dfn is like a sub-type of ITS term

    Tadej: dt is only in a list

    karlF: adding a default rule would be better
    ... simpler

    Marcis: but only in a BP document

    Felix: yes

    <fsasaki>
    [91]http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-xml-i18n-bp-20080213/#relati
    ng-its-plus-xhtml

      [91] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-xml-i18n-bp-20080213/#relating-its-plus-xhtml

    <scribe> ACTION: Felix to answer Richard to indicate we'll
    address this with a rule file in BP [recorded in
    [92]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action11]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-398 - Answer Richard to indicate
    we'll address this with a rule file in BP [on Felix Sasaki -
    due 2013-01-30].

    <scribe> ACTION: Felix to draft non-normative section
    clarifying relations to HTML for issue 89 [recorded in
    [93]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action12]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-399 - Draft non-normative section
    clarifying relations to HTML for issue 89 [on Felix Sasaki -
    due 2013-01-30].

    action felix to edit the specification for Translate (MUST
    missing, etc.)

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-400 - Edit the specification for
    Language (MUST missing, etc.) [on Felix Sasaki - due
    2013-01-30].

issue-82

    <fsasaki>
    [94]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
    lt-comments/2013Jan/0067.html

      [94] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0067.html

    Felix: if values are ok, no need to have a mapping

    <fsasaki>
    [95]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-international/2013J
    anMar/0048.html

      [95] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-international/2013JanMar/0048.html

    felix: something without mapping just pass through

    <fsasaki> answer to the comment: "STEP 3-1-2-5-2. Else (if no
    mapping is found): Add the string (in its original cases) to
    the result string."

    <scribe> ACTION: daveL to reply to Richard [recorded in
    [96]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action13]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-401 - Reply to Richard [on David
    Lewis - due 2013-01-30].

case related comments

    <fsasaki>
    [97]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/i
    ssues/102

      [97] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/102

    <fsasaki>
    [98]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
    lt-comments/2013Jan/0116.html

      [98] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0116.html

    Pablo: at first we used case-sensitive
    ... then we moved to insensitive
    ... we could compare directly
    ... but if document is encoded differently we may have entities
    ... and the string is different

    <fsasaki> scribe: fsasaki

    yves: by entity you mean "person"?

    pablo: yes

    <pnietoca> <meta name="description" content="Econom&iacute;a"/>

    <pnietoca> ... domainMapping="Economía (ECON), Leyes (Law)"/>

    yves: but that gets resolved then you parse the documnt

    pablo: see example above

    yves: then you read the document the entity wil be converted
    into í
    ... if we just do case-sensitive we have a problem
    ... the reason why we want to have insensitive: to avoid
    duplicates
    ... because we know people don't regard casing for keywords
    anyway
    ... so in one case we say: case matters, in others we say they
    don't matter
    ... so one solution is: case always matters
    ... but what is the solution for HTML?

    davidF: wouldn't be worried that you preserve case
    ... only if you fail to map

    yves: only when you compare during the mapping you are
    uncertain
    ... problem is: many documents have keywords typed differently
    ... could also have a keyword saying "mapping or not"

    felix: would that delay the problem
    ...

    resolution: agree with first question in
    [99]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
    lt-comments/2013Jan/0116.html
    ... 2nd question becomes unnecessary

      [99] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0116.html

    <scribe> scribe: Yves_

    action yves to fix text and algo for domain case mapping

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-402 - Fix text and algo for domain
    case mapping [on Yves Savourel - due 2013-01-30].

    scribe Yves_

ISSUE-84

    dF: dave split indic language issues into 3 topics
    ... first one is covered in issue-84

    <fsasaki> reply from dave on issue-84 at
    [100]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb
    -lt-comments/2013Jan/0149.html

     [100] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0149.html

    dF: answer is: yes transliterating is different but we didn't
    have enough use cases for a requirement
    ... that made it as a final data category

    felix: so we are waiting for a reply now

ISSUE-86

    felix: implementation committement

    <fsasaki>
    [101]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb
    -lt-comments/2013Jan/0144.html

     [101] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0144.html

    for several issues

    scribe: for Ruby and Directionality
    ... basically we don't have experts and no volunteer to
    implement
    ... Ruby may be ported for XLIFF
    ... still not sure what is the aim: dropping ruby or not?
    ... also not sure when we can expect stability
    ... but we want to be feature complete very soon
    ... questions to the i18n are out, waiting for feedback

    <fsasaki> yves: directionality is not really used in XLIFF

    <fsasaki> .. implementers use control characters

    <fsasaki> .. we tried really hard in XLIFF2

    <fsasaki> .. we have a module for directionality in XLIFF2

    <fsasaki> .. but the implementers would insert rather control
    characters than markup

    dF: when we discussed directionality in Lyon, someone described
    how to do dir with inline markup

    felix: .. for Ruby, I don't think anyone implemented the
    pointer for example

    Arle: need to speak to Asian developers
    ... group is not representative
    ... for these issues

    Felix: for Japanese there is a detailed document on layout
    ... and requirements in XML and HTML are pushed by this doc and
    issues not addressed in ITS2ument
    ... Our question is how can we deal with it?

    Arle: maybe it can be defined later in a different namespace

    Felix: maybe, but baiscally it's the same for ITS 2.
    ... lunh time now

    <Arle> s/lunh/lunch

    <Arle> s/lunh/lunch/

    <Arle> Scribe: Arle

meeting schedule

    <fsasaki>
    [102]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ev
    entSchedule

     [102] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/EventSchedule

    Felix: I thought of discussing the next meetings, but Pedro
    isn't here.
    ... See the wiki page. You will see that thanks to Tadej that
    we have a face-to-face in Bled in May.
    ... I just got an email from Pedro with some offers to host the
    face-to-face in Madrid, but all are beyond budget (¤5000),
    because he would have to rent meeting space.
    ... We might need to think of an alternative to Madrid. One
    alternative is LocWorld in June in London.
    ... We could ask Microsoft if there is a London office we could
    use.

    <fsasaki> s/Microsoft/xyz/

    LocWorld is 12--14 June

    David: 10 June is XLIFF; 11--12 June (?) is FEISGILTT

    Felix: We will need technical discussions in June.

    Yves: Whole week is booked for some people with the different
    events.

    Felix: Week of 17th?
    ... Please check your calendars to see if that might work.
    ... 17--18 June is the suggestion.

    Location: TBD in a cheap place.

    Felix: Berlin would be free.

    s/Location:/.. Location/

    Dave: Dublin is an option.

    <scribe> ACTION: Felix is to check availability of Berlin on
    17--18 June. [recorded in
    [103]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action14]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-403 - Is to check availability of
    Berlin on 17--18 June. [on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-01-30].

    <scribe> ACTION: daveL to check availability in Dublin for
    face-to-face meeting on 17--18 June. [recorded in
    [104]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action15]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-404 - Check availability in Dublin
    for face-to-face meeting on 17--18 June. [on David Lewis - due
    2013-01-30].

    Pedro: I am looking at various possibilities in Madrid still.

    Felix: Would it be OK for you if we look at other cities to
    save costs?

    Pedro: That is fine for me. Leave Madrid as an alternative.
    ... My latest option in Madrid comes to 3--3.5K¤, if we have
    everyone stay at the same hotel.

    Felix: We need to fix these dates as soon as possible because
    of Localization World so that travel can be arranged by
    everyone as appropriate.
    ... Dave and I will try to decide so people can make
    arrangements.

    <fsasaki>
    [105]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ev
    entSchedule

     [105] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/EventSchedule

    Felix: We are also considering another face-to-face in
    September, around LRC conference.
    ... In Limerick.
    ... Dates would be 16--17 September (pending confirmation).
    ... Would 23--24 September be also good

    <fsasaki> will come back to september meeting tomorrow

    s/also good/also good?/

    <fsasaki> 23-24 would be difficult for cocomore

Last workshop

    Felix: Project ends in December. DoW shows we spend most
    efforts until September, so if the workshop is in December,
    mass may be difficult. Do we have a regular workshop, or some
    other kind of event?
    ... Any ideas of other options for final event?
    ... We can't drop it due to work package, which describes it as
    biggest workshop.

    Pedro: What about colocation of the final workshop with another
    event?
    ... David: What about tcworld?

    s/.. David:/David../

    scribe: It is a big one. Might be good to connect there.

    <scribe> ACTION: Felix to follow up with Christian on tekom as
    an option. [recorded in
    [106]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action16]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-405 - Follow up with Christian on
    tekom as an option. [on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-01-30].

    Arle: Consider that colocating with a commercial event will
    likely have higher costs.

    Felix: We can do another MLW workshop, or look at other
    options.

    Yves: That is a lot of work.

    Felix: Yes, and after September, we can't ask people for a lot
    of work.
    ... Also, September/October is probably too early for the next
    workshop after the one in March.
    ... What if we don't make a conference or go to one? Instead we
    have an event (possibly closed) to do demos to customers?

    <Pedro> Pedro: Tekom, Wiesbaden 06Nov-08Nov2013

    Felix: we can consider still in January. Let me and Dave know
    of any options that come to mind.

    Dave: I can already confirm space would be available in Dublin
    in June.

posters

    Felix: Our reviewers will most likely not be in Rome. So we
    need to make a presentation in Luxembourg. Posters would help
    show completion.

    Pedro: What size should they be?

    Felix: A0.

    <scribe> ACTION: Arle to resize templates for posters from A1
    to A0. [recorded in
    [107]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action17]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-406 - Resize templates for posters
    from A1 to A0. [on Arle Lommel - due 2013-01-30].

Issues

    <daveL> scribe daveL

issue-88

    <fsasaki>
    [108]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb
    -lt-comments/2013Jan/0070.html

     [108] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0070.html

    <daveL> felix: this is just editorial in the directionality
    section

    <scribe> Scribe: Arle

    <fsasaki> s/topic: Issues//

    David: I don't know the difference between the HTML elements
    here.

    <scribe> ACTION: Felix to check for clarification on Issue-88
    [recorded in
    [109]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action18]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-407 - Check for clarification on
    Issue-88 [on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-01-30].

issue-92

    <fsasaki> original mail at
    [110]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb
    -lt-comments/2013Jan/0076.html

     [110] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0076.html

    Yves: This is a note from Richard asking why information is in
    a note, which is not normative.
    ... Can a note be normative? I believe they can be if they are
    in a normative section. I believe we have MUSTS in notes.

    Felix: I think that is a mistake.

    <scribe> ACTION: Felix to ensure that there is no MUST in any
    notes. [recorded in
    [111]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action19]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-408 - Ensure that there is no MUST in
    any notes. [on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-01-30].

    Yves: idValue global has one.

    <fsasaki> relation to issue-103 - clarify the algorithm

    Yves: One explanation + bullet explaining that empty = no
    locale and * = all locales. Then we can eliminate the note.

    Felix: Solution is to have three bullets explaining the cases,
    and delete note. Resolves issue-92 and issue-103.
    ... Yves, do you use extended filtering?

    Yves: Yes. We do. We need to check with Shaun, but I believe
    this is the algorithm for extended filtering.

    Felix: We need to express the approach described in BCP47 and
    that it will work for everyone implementing this. Tilde should
    check.
    ... Ankit and Marcis, should we return to this, or can we
    assume that if we don't hear otherwise, it's OK?

    <scribe> ACTION: Yves to follow up with Richard and Norbert on
    issue-92 and issue-103. [recorded in
    [112]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action20]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-409 - Follow up with Richard and
    Norbert on issue-92 and issue-103. [on Yves Savourel - due
    2013-01-30].

Issue-93

    Jirka: Proposed resolution is to use what was proposed by
    original commenter.

    <scribe> ACTION: Jirka to write to Henry on issue-93 and make
    the change in the text. [recorded in
    [113]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action21]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-410 - Write to Henry on issue-93 and
    make the change in the text. [on Jirka Kosek - due 2013-01-30].

Issue-94

    Felix: I think Jirka has a proposed resolution.

    Jirka: I've sent replies to Henry, but not heard back. I think
    we should resolve this issue in a different way. See link at
    end of issue.
    ... HTML has different rules for processing white space and
    decimal numbers. There is different precision between XML and
    HTML.
    ... The easiest resolution is to use the double data type in
    XML for ITS. It will align XLM and HTML. Double is implemented
    in almost all programming languages. So we move all data types
    to double and deal with the differences in leading and trailing
    whitespace between the two.

    Felix: This impacts localization quality, MT confidence, and
    localization quality rating.
    ... Is this OK for all implementers?

    Jirka: Only difference is that double has lower precision than
    decimal. And you can use exponential notation.

    Felix: Also disambigConfidence and term confidence.

    <scribe> ACTION: Jirka to change localization quality,
    localization rating, mt confidence, term confidence, and
    disambig confidence to use double rather than decimal and
    respond to Henry (Issue-94) [recorded in
    [114]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action22]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-411 - Change localization quality,
    localization rating, mt confidence, term confidence, and
    disambig confidence to use double rather than decimal and
    respond to Henry (Issue-94) [on Jirka Kosek - due 2013-01-30].

issue-95

    <fsasaki>
    [115]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb
    -lt-comments/2013Jan/0093.html

     [115] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0093.html

    Felix: We should reject this. The proposal itself said that
    translatable is different than localizable (e.g., in formatting
    numbers and images).
    ... Discussion was between Norbert, Felix, Des, and Phil.
    ... I think addressing this would take too much time at this
    point.

    <fsasaki> another point for Dave here
    [116]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb
    -lt-comments/2013Jan/0147.html

     [116] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0147.html

    Dave: It really is out of scope for ITS.
    ... Translators will deal with this on their own anyway.

    Felix: Norbert asked if we could use ITS for localizing CLDR? I
    don't see that as a real use case.

    <scribe> ACTION: Felix to let Norbert know that action-95 is
    out of scope. [recorded in
    [117]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action23]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-412 - Let Norbert know that action-95
    is out of scope. [on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-01-30].

issue-98

    <fsasaki> s/issue-98/issue-98 and issue-99

    Milan: related to issue-99. I found that there is no way to do
    this. It is mentioned only for global approach to selectors and
    what is allowed. Chapter 1.1 should state that the local
    approach can be applied only to the content of the current
    element and any inherited nodes, per 8.1
    ... For issue-99, when using selectors in ITS, how do you
    select attributes? Information is there, but the definition of
    node differs between XML and HTML, leading to confusion. I see
    Yves' suggestion to remove CSS as a selector type since they
    can point only to elements, but I would keep it and add a note
    that we can only point to elements, not attributes.

    David: I think it makes sense to keep CSS.

    Felix: We don't have any implementers using selectors.

    Yves: Shaun is, as a prototype.

    Felix: I never got it to work.

    Yves: Norbert says for HTML people selectors may be important.
    ... But with no implementations, it won't happen. It's marked
    as endangered.

    Felix: We can drop "at risk" bits.
    ... I agree with Milan's solution, but we might drop them
    anyway.

    Jirka: suggested a path to get implementation.

    Felix: It would be nice. Right now we have two paths, doing
    testing only for XPath, but not for CSS.

    Jirka: Do we need tests, since they just select nodes?

    Felix: Maybe the test suite or elsewhere, would we have
    examples making use of CSS.
    ... If we don't have testing, W3C management may not like us
    saying "you can do it on your own but we haven't done it."

    Jirka: We need at least one selection mechanism. Testing is to
    verify interoperability.

    Felix: We need to have at least one example for standardization
    and users about how to use it. We have no CSS examples.

    Jirka: Let's have some examples, parallel to XPath examples.

    Felix: Can you link to libraries to convert between CSS and
    XPath selectors?
    ... Are there non-browser conversions?

    <scribe> ACTION: Jirka to find data on CSS and XPath selectors
    conversion libraries and keep CSS selectors in the spec.
    [recorded in
    [118]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action24]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-413 - Find data on CSS and XPath
    selectors conversion libraries and keep CSS selectors in the
    spec. [on Jirka Kosek - due 2013-01-30].

issue-100

    <fsasaki>
    [119]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb
    -lt-comments/2013Jan/0126.html

     [119] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0126.html

    Felix: Yves proposed a resolution.

    <scribe> ACTION: Felix to make edit for issue-100 and get back
    to Norbert. [recorded in
    [120]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action25]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-414 - Make edit for issue-100 and get
    back to Norbert. [on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-01-30].

issue-104

    <scribe> ACTION: Felix to update unicode reference for
    issue-104 [recorded in
    [121]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action26]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-415 - Update unicode reference for
    issue-104 [on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-01-30].

issue-106 and issue-107

    <fsasaki> 106 see
    [122]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb
    -lt-comments/2013Jan/0121.html

     [122] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0121.html

    <fsasaki> s/106/107/

    Karl: Norbert asked some questions and we weren't sure how to
    resolve them. It isn't up to the spec. The implementation must
    support UTF-8, but that is up to the implementer. It is best
    practice, especially for storage size. But we don't think it
    has to be mandatory for all implementations.

    <fsasaki> 106 see
    [123]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb
    -lt-comments/2013Jan/0120.html

     [123] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0120.html

    Karl: Other question was how to handle encoding when the
    implementation doesn't support it. Again, this is not up to the
    spec. We can define best practice, but it doesn't need to be
    stated in the spec.

    Stephan: Perhaps we have an explanation about what storage size
    is used for. The question is about when it is used to markup
    text in the source language. It is informational, but not up to
    the spec to tell us what to do if a tool doesn't support an
    encoding or if user text cannot be represented in a given
    encoding.

    Karl: We should add a sentence to storage size, per the note on
    the issue-107.

    Felix: on issue-106 and issue-107 we do nothing, just let
    Norbert know the rationale.

    <scribe> ACTION: Karl to propose solution to Norbert and then
    Felix can add to spec. [recorded in
    [124]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action27]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-416 - Propose solution to Norbert and
    then Felix can add to spec. [on Karl Fritsche - due
    2013-01-30].

    Felix: When we go back to Norbert, talk about what we did in
    the group to show there is consensus.

issue-108 and issue-109

    Felix: Both relate to Indic requirements.

    Dave: They make a point that there is dependency on context
    (e.g., part of speech) that influences how you translate
    things. They want PoS in localizationNote and provided an annex
    of possible annotations.
    ... Adding a data type specifically for this would be a big
    change. You see companies when they want to add their own
    metadata use localizationNote with name:value pairs. It could
    be best practice outside the spec.

    <daveL>
    [125]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb
    -lt-comments/2013Jan/0154.html

     [125] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0154.html

    <fsasaki> reply from Dave on locNote its2 req , see above mail

    Dave: I pointed them to other relevant resources, like NIF.

    Arle: This would be too complex for us to solve this problem.
    Anything that works for Europe may fall apart elsewhere.
    ... I don't think we could solve this in a reasonable time
    frame without too much controversy.

    Tadej: they have PoS taggers in MT already, but it is
    specialized. This would be scope creep.

    Marcis: Once you add PoS, you have to add syntax, etc....

    Dave: Do humans need PoS tagging? I don't know.

    Marcis: Wouldn't this be duplicating existing work in text
    analysis.

    <scribe> ACTION: DaveL to go back to Somnath on issue-108 to
    explain why we won't address it. [recorded in
    [126]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action28]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-417 - Go back to Somnath on issue-108
    to explain why we won't address it. [on David Lewis - due
    2013-01-30].

    Dave: issue-109 falls out of my expertise. It deals with nested
    output from NER.

    Tadej: I didn't quite follow the requirements. It seems they
    want to show that parts of entities may be entities. I don't
    know if they need this or are showing what they might do with
    this.
    ... Regardless of this, the comment that hierarchy is needed.

    Dave: We can't do this.

    Tadej: Overriding makes that the case, but if we allowed
    multiple values, we could.

    Dave: But you need to show that the different parts are bound
    together.

    Tadej: If you allow multiple values (e.g., something can belong
    to two entities), then the scope can be ambiguous.

    Marcis: But there should be no ambiguous overlaps in a
    hierarchy.

    Stephan: When would you actually use the knowledge that you
    have nested named entities?

    Tadej: Can we make the restriction that entities are
    contiguous?

    Dave: That would be reasonable.
    ... The solution isn't straight-foward. This would be a new
    feature. I think we should respond in that way.

    s/Dave: The solution/.. The solution/

    Discussion about whether hierarchy is needed and produced.

    Dave: You could also point to a NIF record with that structure
    in it.

    Tadej: If several disambiguationRefs address something, we
    can't tell which one produced what.
    ... If a single node can have multiple values it makes tracking
    hard. We use stand-off for this.
    ... This multiple granularity might break things.

    <scribe> ACTION: Dave to respond to Somnath on issue-109 to
    explain we are looking at it to make recommendations. [recorded
    in
    [127]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action29]

    <trackbot> Error finding 'Dave'. You can review and register
    nicknames at
    <[128]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/
    users>.

     [128] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/users%3E.

    <scribe> ACTION: DaveL to respond to Somnath on issue-109 to
    explain we are looking at it to make recommendations. [recorded
    in
    [129]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action30]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-418 - Respond to Somnath on issue-109
    to explain we are looking at it to make recommendations. [on
    David Lewis - due 2013-01-30].

locale filtering question

    <fsasaki> marcis: in content is "de"

    <fsasaki> .. in the localeFilter it would be de-de

    <fsasaki> felix: not matched

test suite check

    Felix: We don't have a lot of coverage (38%) and most of that
    is thanks to Yves and Fredryk (ENLASO).
    ... At the end of January we have the deadline to run all test
    cases. Is that deadline (next week) realistic? We have some
    changes, but others are stable.

    Leroy: The files will remain the same, with changes after the
    21st.

    Karl: our cases are theoretically all working, but we have some
    issues with sorting of attributes, which we don't do. That's
    the only reason we aren't complete.
    ... In the input attributes are source and alt. We output them
    in that order, but the output sorts them.

    Leroy: I can run my sorting function on output for you.

    Stephan: Actually, it is backward, the source is in order, the
    output isn't.

    Yves: Many engines do not care about order. You have to handle
    sorting yourselves.

    Karl: It's not a big change and then we are done. I will make
    the change myself.

    Ankit: We have a few small snags.

    Linguaserve: (Some issues. ???)

    Thomas: We are working on our implementations, should be ready
    next week.

    David: Connection between Moravia and UL tests...

    Felix: David, I know you use Okapi wrapper. When that is
    integrated in the workflow, you can run the same tests as
    Okapi. So now you run six cases, but you could run more then.

RFC statements

    <fsasaki>
    [130]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ow
    nership_of_rfc2119_statements

     [130] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ownership_of_rfc2119_statements

    Felix: Much is covered by the schema.
    ... #25 talks about the content of the annotatorsRef attribute.
    Currently the data type is text. There is a need for test case
    with a file with a non-allowed identifier and the parser says
    it is wrong. That would test it, even though it does not
    produce specified output.
    ... David, could you make a test case and get the implementers
    to run it?
    ... See example below:

    <fsasaki> annotatorsRef="mt-confidence|tool1"

    <fsasaki> annotatorsRef="mtconfidence|tool1"

    Felix: Second line should throw an error.

    Yves: Do we have standard output for the errors?

    Felix: No. This will require human verification.
    ... We can address issues here until October.
    ... After XML Prague would be fine.

    Jirka: We can do this using Schematron with regex.

    Karl: There are similar cases in the docs to do negative tests.

    Jirka: It's already there, but you have to look at the
    Schematron, not the XSD.
    ... Doing as much as possible in Schematron.

    Felix: What about #39, #35, #41?
    ... If not checked by Schematron, please add later.

    <fsasaki> ACTION: jirka to make schematron tests described at
    [131]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ow
    nership_of_rfc2119_statements#Purpose [recorded in
    [132]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action31]

     [131] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ownership_of_rfc2119_statements#Purpose

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-419 - Make schematron tests described
    at
    [133]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ow
    nership_of_rfc2119_statements#Purpose [on Jirka Kosek - due
    2013-01-30].

     [133] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ownership_of_rfc2119_statements#Purpose

    Felix: #31, if values have spaces, must be delimited with
    quotation marks. Need a test case?

    Yves: It's already covered by the test cases, which fail if the
    output isn't formatted properly.

    Felix: #36. Overriding means these won't be combined anyway.
    Maybe make an action to delete the sentence in 8.11.2?

    Action-420

    Refers Issue-111

    <fsasaki> ACTION: felix to make edit for issue-111 [recorded in
    [134]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action32]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-420 - Make edit for issue-111 [on
    Felix Sasaki - due 2013-01-30].

    Felix: #36 is dropped.

    <fsasaki> " If the type of the issue is set to uncategorized, a
    comment MUST be specified as well." - can be checked, an error
    if no comment is avaiable

    Felix: Maybe we put the other MUST statement (about mapping
    internal types to issue type values) as its own test type. To
    catch the error, you must be able to parse the category.
    ... You need to understand the values and different types or
    markup. It is on top of the normal test suite functionality.

    Yves: We don't need the MUST there. The value column covers the
    same thing.

    Discussion about where to test.

test suite

    <fsasaki> s/topic: test suite//

    <fsasaki> "The set of characters that are allowed is specified
    using a regular expression. That is, each character in the
    selected content MUST be included in the set specified by the
    regular expression."

    <fsasaki> this is not a test for the processor, but for the
    consuming application

    <fsasaki> for IANA charset names see
    [135]http://www.iana.org/assignments/character-sets/character-s
    ets.xml

     [135] http://www.iana.org/assignments/character-sets/character-sets.xml

    <fsasaki> we point to the IANA list, that's it

    <fsasaki> relevant for this MUST statement: "A storageEncoding
    attribute. It contains the name of the character set encoding
    used to calculate the number of bytes of the selected text. The
    name MUST be one of the names or aliases listed in the IANA
    Character Sets registry . The default value is UTF-8."

    Felix: For many quality issue type items, change MUST/MUST NOT
    to must/must not.
    ... Numbers 45--48

    <fsasaki> "See entries 45-48 at
    [136]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ow
    nership_of_rfc2119_statements#Purpose these statements are not
    verifable. Proposal is to set MUST and MUST NOT to lower case
    to make clear that the text is just guidance."

     [136] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ownership_of_rfc2119_statements#Purpose

    <fsasaki> for 45 " The values a tool implementing the data
    category produces for the attribute MUST match one of the
    values provided in this table and MUST be semantically
    accurate.": re-formulate this :

    <fsasaki> drop "MUST be semantically accurate".

    "If a tool can map its internal values to these types it MUST
    do so and MUST NOT use the value other, which is reserved
    strictly for values that cannot be mapped to these values." ->
    "Note that the other category is reserved for cases where a
    tool-specific category cannot be mapped..."

    <fsasaki> ACTION: arle to work on statements 45-48 at
    [137]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ow
    nership_of_rfc2119_statements#Purpose , see prague f2f minutes
    [recorded in
    [138]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action33]

     [137] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ownership_of_rfc2119_statements#Purpose

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-421 - Work on statements 45-48 at
    [139]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ow
    nership_of_rfc2119_statements#Purpose , see prague f2f minutes
    [on Arle Lommel - due 2013-01-30].

     [139] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ownership_of_rfc2119_statements#Purpose

    Yves pointed out that the values should be done by class, not
    on an individual error basis independent of classes.

    #48. If a system has an "miscellaneous" or "other" category, it
    MUST be mapped to this value even if the specific instance of
    the issue might be mapped to another category -> append note on
    semantic accuracy here.

requirements doc

    <fsasaki> multi-engine domain scenario + multi engine domain
    scenario

    <fsasaki> issue-95 and issue-75 would be covered by this

    <fsasaki>
    [140]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Re
    quirements#autoLanguageProcessingRule

     [140] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements#autoLanguageProcessingRule

    <fsasaki>
    [141]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Re
    quirements#Process

     [141] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements#Process

    <fsasaki>
    [142]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Re
    quirements#formatType

     [142] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements#formatType

    <fsasaki>
    [143]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Re
    quirements#genre

     [143] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements#genre

    <fsasaki>
    [144]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Re
    quirements#purpose

     [144] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements#purpose

    <fsasaki>
    [145]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Re
    quirements#translatorQualification

     [145] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements#translatorQualification

    <fsasaki>
    [146]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Re
    quirements#register

     [146] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements#register

    <fsasaki>
    [147]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Re
    quirements#contentLicensingTerms

     [147] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements#contentLicensingTerms

    <fsasaki>
    [148]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Re
    quirements#author

     [148] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements#author

    <fsasaki> (covered by dc.terms

    <fsasaki>
    [149]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Re
    quirements#confidentiality

     [149] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements#confidentiality

    <fsasaki>
    [150]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Re
    quirements#context

     [150] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements#context

    <fsasaki>
    [151]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Re
    quirements#languageResource

     [151] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements#languageResource

    <swalter> for 45: Note that the other category is reserved...
    -> Note that the "other" category is reserved to cases where a
    tool-specific category cannot be mapped to any of the first
    categories in a semantically accurate manner.

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: ankit to create example for xml;lang / lang
    [recorded in
    [152]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action09]
    [NEW] ACTION: arle to make the edit for issue 76 [recorded in
    [153]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action05]
    [NEW] ACTION: Arle to resize templates for posters from A1 to
    A0. [recorded in
    [154]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action17]
    [NEW] ACTION: arle to work on statements 45-48 at
    [155]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ow
    nership_of_rfc2119_statements#Purpose , see prague f2f minutes
    [recorded in
    [156]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action33]
    [NEW] ACTION: Dave to respond to Somnath on issue-109 to
    explain we are looking at it to make recommendations. [recorded
    in
    [157]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action29]
    [NEW] ACTION: daveL to check availability in Dublin for
    face-to-face meeting on 17--18 June. [recorded in
    [158]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action15]
    [NEW] ACTION: DaveL to go back to Somnath on issue-108 to
    explain why we won't address it. [recorded in
    [159]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action28]
    [NEW] ACTION: daveL to reply to Richard [recorded in
    [160]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action13]
    [NEW] ACTION: DaveL to respond to Somnath on issue-109 to
    explain we are looking at it to make recommendations. [recorded
    in
    [161]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action30]
    [NEW] ACTION: dLewis6 to come back to chase and kevin about
    discussion of issue-71
    [162]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-irc#T08-34-49
    [recorded in
    [163]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: Felix is to check availability of Berlin on 17--18
    June. [recorded in
    [164]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action14]
    [NEW] ACTION: felix to add links to examples for issue 80
    [recorded in
    [165]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action07]
    [NEW] ACTION: Felix to answer Richard to indicate we'll address
    this with a rule file in BP [recorded in
    [166]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action11]
    [NEW] ACTION: felix to change example
    [167]http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#EX-its-tool-a
    nnotation-1 if the agree on issue-71 , see discussion at
    [168]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-irc#T08-34-49
    [recorded in
    [169]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: Felix to check for clarification on Issue-88
    [recorded in
    [170]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action18]
    [NEW] ACTION: felix to check what of lang and xml;lang takes
    precedence [recorded in
    [171]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action08]
    [NEW] ACTION: Felix to draft non-normative section clarifying
    relations to HTML for issue 89 [recorded in
    [172]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action12]
    [NEW] ACTION: Felix to ensure that there is no MUST in any
    notes. [recorded in
    [173]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action19]
    [NEW] ACTION: Felix to follow up with Christian on tekom as an
    option. [recorded in
    [174]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action16]
    [NEW] ACTION: felix to go back to richard about new resolution
    for issue-79 [recorded in
    [175]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action06]
    [NEW] ACTION: Felix to let Norbert know that action-95 is out
    of scope. [recorded in
    [176]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action23]
    [NEW] ACTION: Felix to make edit for issue-100 and get back to
    Norbert. [recorded in
    [177]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action25]
    [NEW] ACTION: felix to make edit for issue-111 [recorded in
    [178]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action32]
    [NEW] ACTION: Felix to update unicode reference for issue-104
    [recorded in
    [179]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action26]
    [NEW] ACTION: Jirka to change localization quality,
    localization rating, mt confidence, term confidence, and
    disambig confidence to use double rather than decimal and
    respond to Henry (Issue-94) [recorded in
    [180]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action22]
    [NEW] ACTION: Jirka to find data on CSS and XPath selectors
    conversion libraries and keep CSS selectors in the spec.
    [recorded in
    [181]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action24]
    [NEW] ACTION: jirka to make edit for issue-77 [recorded in
    [182]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action04]
    [NEW] ACTION: jirka to make schematron tests described at
    [183]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ow
    nership_of_rfc2119_statements#Purpose [recorded in
    [184]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action31]
    [NEW] ACTION: Jirka to write to Henry on issue-93 and make the
    change in the text. [recorded in
    [185]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action21]
    [NEW] ACTION: Karl to propose solution to Norbert and then
    Felix can add to spec. [recorded in
    [186]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action27]
    [NEW] ACTION: tadej to check disambiguation examples with
    regards to presence of annotatorsRef [recorded in
    [187]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action03]
    [NEW] ACTION: yves to enter the new text for 97 (above)
    [recorded in
    [188]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action10]
    [NEW] ACTION: Yves to follow up with Richard and Norbert on
    issue-92 and issue-103. [recorded in
    [189]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action20]

     [155] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ownership_of_rfc2119_statements#Purpose
     [162] http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-irc#T08-34-49
     [167] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#EX-its-tool-annotation-1
     [168] http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-irc#T08-34-49
     [183] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ownership_of_rfc2119_statements#Purpose

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________


     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [190]scribe.perl version
     1.137 ([191]CVS log)
     $Date: 2013-01-27 19:40:15 $

     [190] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [191] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/



=====
DAY2
=====

    [1]W3C

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

                                - DRAFT -

                                mlw-lt f2f

24 Jan 2013

    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/PragueJan2013f2f#Thursday

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Arle, tadej, Jirka, DaveLewis, Marcis, Ankit, leroy,
           Yves, mdelolmo, pnietoca, Karl, swalter, truedesheim,
           dF, christian(remote 11-12), felix, Milan

    Regrets
    Chair
           felix

    Scribe
           fsasaki, dF, daveL

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]issue-113
          2. [6]rome + xml prague prep
          3. [7]disambiguation and terminology again
          4. [8]action item and issue review
          5. [9]BP publications
          6. [10]meeting schedule
          7. [11]final event ideas
          8. [12]best practices
          9. [13]disambiguation again
      * [14]Summary of Action Items
      __________________________________________________________

    <fsasaki>
    [15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
    lt-comments/2013Jan/0123.html

      [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0123.html

issue-113

    <fsasaki>
    [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
    lt-comments/2013Jan/0123.html

      [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0123.html

    <fsasaki> ACTION: arle to do copy-edtiing on the spec - due 1
    april [recorded in
    [17]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-422 - do copy-edtiing on the spec [on
    Arle Lommel - due 2013-04-01].

    <fsasaki> ACTION: felix to to edits for issue-113 [recorded in
    [18]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-423 - To edits for issue-113 [on
    Felix Sasaki - due 2013-01-31].

    <fsasaki> "Information (e.g. "translate this") captured by ITS
    markup (e.g. its:translate='yes') always pertains to one or
    more XML or HTML nodes (primarily element and attribute nodes).
    "

    <fsasaki> scribe: fsasaki

    <pnietoca> I found another typo

    <pnietoca> on section 5.8 the paragraph before example 26

    <pnietoca> says: On any given node, the information provided by
    this mechanism is a space-separated list of the accumulated
    references found "it" the annotatorsRef attributes declared in
    the enclosing elements and sorted by data category identifiers.
    For each data category, the IRI part is the one of the
    inner-most "declarartion".

    <pnietoca> found "it" the annotatorsRef > it should be in

    <pnietoca> declarartion should be declaration

    <Arle> I just raised an issue for what you found:
    [19]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/i
    ssues/114

      [19] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/114

    <Arle> ACTION: Arle to fix section 8.9 note: "since the extra
    training resources does not justify the improvement in the
    output." -> "since the extra training resources do not justify
    the improvement in the output." [recorded in
    [20]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-424 - Fix section 8.9 note: "since
    the extra training resources does not justify the improvement
    in the output." -> "since the extra training resources do not
    justify the improvement in the output." [on Arle Lommel - due
    2013-01-31].

    [21]https://github.com/finnle/ITS-2.0-Testsuite/blob/master/its
    2.0/inputdata/domain/html/domain1htmlrules.xml

      [21] https://github.com/finnle/ITS-2.0-Testsuite/blob/master/its2.0/inputdata/domain/html/domain1htmlrules.xml

    <scribe> ACTION: ankit to change test suite for domain in HTML
    [22]https://github.com/finnle/ITS-2.0-Testsuite/tree/master/its
    2.0/inputdata/domain/html , that is have "keywords" instead of
    "description" in the HTML and rules files [recorded in
    [23]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action04]

      [22] https://github.com/finnle/ITS-2.0-Testsuite/tree/master/its2.0/inputdata/domain/html

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-425 - Change test suite for domain in
    HTML
    [24]https://github.com/finnle/ITS-2.0-Testsuite/tree/master/its
    2.0/inputdata/domain/html , that is have "keywords" instead of
    "description" in the HTML and rules files [on Ankit Srivastava
    - due 2013-01-31].

      [24] https://github.com/finnle/ITS-2.0-Testsuite/tree/master/its2.0/inputdata/domain/html

    <Yves_>
    [25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
    lt-comments/2013Jan/0158.html

      [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0158.html

    <pnietoca> thanks Arle

rome + xml prague prep

    [26]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-multilingualweb
    -lt/2013Jan/0000.html

      [26] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-multilingualweb-lt/2013Jan/0000.html

    <Arle> Arle: I will be submitting new templates for the
    posters. They had been A1 size, but we are going for A0. Links
    will be sent out soon.

    <scribe> ACTION: arle to create an indicator for poster
    relations [recorded in
    [27]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action05]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-426 - Create an indicator for poster
    relations [on Arle Lommel - due 2013-01-31].

    <scribe> ACTION: felix to nudge people for a first poster draft
    - 28 february [recorded in
    [28]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action06]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-427 - Nudge people for a first poster
    draft - 28 february [on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-01-31].

disambiguation and terminology again

    [29]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
    lt-comments/2013Jan/0163.html

      [29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0163.html

    <scribe> scribe: fsasaki

    <dF> scribe: dF

    Tadej: showing slides
    ... seems there is a way that would not compromise ITS 1.0 term
    ... several different attributes, now with two categories
    ... simultaneous annotations on multiple granularity levels are
    not possible
    ... currecntly, fragment is in relationship with a URI
    ... but term is flag
    ... Scenario A
    ... term remains flag, but becomes a new granularity within
    disambiguation.

    Issues: ... multiple annotations still not possible

    Felix: clarification, this should be possible through
    concatenated values

    Tadej: Ugly but doable as an excercise..

    Marcis: we discussed that

    Tadej: did not seem a good idea

    Another suggestion leading to B

    scribe: granularitoes make sense indepenedently
    ... terminology is just one level
    ... having a set of attributes for every level
    ... lots of new attributes
    ... BUT everything can be done simultaneously and independently
    ... multivalues seemed to require black magic to implement,
    gets ugly fast
    ... decided to keep cardinality at 1

    Scenario B

    scribe: Keep terminology, drop granularity
    ... encode the levels stright in attributes

    Felix: clarification, separate data category identifier for
    each level?

    Tadej: basically, yes, oterwise we would need subcategories
    ... but the same pattern is always repeated, this should be
    good for adoption
    ... it would be just a refactoring job

    swalter: danger of semantic contradictions
    ... but it id not the formats issue to try and prevent this

    Tadej: we were trying to avoid the host of the different
    attributes by introducing glanurity

    Yves: is it a single data category, or four?

    Tadej: technically they are different from the modelling point
    of view, but they have same pattern, so can be grouped
    ... but they are independent in a sence and can go standalone..

    Felix: What about implementation commitments? Do we enforce
    implementing all four, if one committs for one?

    tadej: all it seems, but it is not requesting too much as they
    really are the same mechanism

    <Arle> (Off topic, but poster templates are here:
    [30]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/223919/lt-web/RomeWorkshop/PosterT
    emplateA0.pptx [PowerPoint] and
    [31]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/223919/lt-web/RomeWorkshop/PosterT
    emplateA0.pdf [PDF].)

      [30] https://dl.dropbox.com/u/223919/lt-web/RomeWorkshop/PosterTemplateA0.pptx
      [31] https://dl.dropbox.com/u/223919/lt-web/RomeWorkshop/PosterTemplateA0.pdf

    tadej: they do not have different behaviors

    Felix: are Christian's concerns addressed with this?
    ... the starting point was wondering about the relationship
    between term and disambiguation

    <fsasaki> tadej: we would simply rename things, but not break
    the model of term

    <fsasaki> felix: how does scneario b relate to terminology?

    <fsasaki> tadej: terminolgoy already conforms to the pattern of
    scenario b, that is why we said we keep it as is

    <fsasaki> dave: we could not touch terminology at all

    <fsasaki> .. the use cases that we want could all be done in
    disambiguation

    <fsasaki> .. so we keep terminology but say that we can do
    everything now in disambiguation

    <fsasaki> tadej: if there is a know term, would you use
    termInfoRef or disambigXxxRef?

    <fsasaki> .. the relationships in disambiguation is in one
    pattern

    <fsasaki> .. and term already follows the pattern already

    <fsasaki> .. how to handle that in terms of data categories is
    a differetent aspect

    <daveL> scribe: daveL

    christian: core of my point related to different levels of
    attribute for different annotaiton, ontology, lexical etc
    ... confirms that the proposal related to different data
    categories for these different levels

    tadej: one exception to common pattern in entity class ref
    beign part of entity class

    christian: to be satisfied, is what do we do with the current
    class of terminology
    ... would suggest giving guidance by deprecating term through
    best practice advice

    felix: why would we deprecate the term option

    christian: meant depricating the current data term category

    felix: thing to proposal is that term is already following the
    pattern the proposed pattern, so it wouldn't changed

    tadej: suggested options are having term as a disambig option
    or as keep term as it is for this

    dave: could have both and as christian suggests give guideance
    on which oen to adopt of how to transation from term to term in
    disambiugate

    tadej: having both raises the issue that term could say 'yes'
    while disambig term option sa no, how should this be handled

    stephan: could be addressed at a schematron validation level

    felix: asks for input from implementors, but no strong
    perferences forthcoming

    tadej: note that this approach results in lots of new attribute
    ... also propose a catch all 'keyword' for things that don't
    fit into the defined categories
    ... some fragement of text that is important for someone

    christian: its good to consider support additional classes of
    analysis, but this isn't part of the comment to date

    felix: summarise, we don't have examples, spec text and
    commitment to implement for this proposal
    ... this requires some considerable effort before we are in a
    position to gt consensus
    ... asks do the proposers have time to work on this to get it
    mature enough to even ask on consensus

    Christian: allocating time for me is difficult

    felix: as chair we really need to see this topic advance before
    we can ask concensus. It really needed by next week or two.
    ... in order to hit a last call draft end february

    Christian: does this proposal address the hiearchical NER issue
    raised by colleagues in India

    tadej: this is orthogonal, so ti doesn't solve problem

    stephan: can we agree on name, an acronym is really useful

    felix: can people complete work in the time

    yves: sceptical that this can be done in time given the amount
    of time and work involved in disambig to date
    ... suggest that we go forward with other comments related to
    dismabig anyway, so these are not held up by looking at this
    proposal

    dF: this would be a definite substantive change requiring a
    frther last call

    felix: there are other that are borderline

action item and issue review

    <fsasaki> issue-67: DECISION-DETAILS: substantive borderline
    change

    <trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-67 Change definition of regular
    expression for allowed characters.

    <fsasaki> issue-68: DECISION-DETAILS: under discussion

    <trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-68 Disambiguation (and term).

    <fsasaki> issue-71: DECISION-DETAILS: resolution to be
    clarified

    <trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-71 Section 5.8 (annotatorsRef).

    <fsasaki> issue-72: DECISION-DETAILS: follow-up needed

    <trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-72 Section 8.12 (Provenance
    Data Category).

    <fsasaki> issue-73: DECISION-DETAILS: follow-up needed

    <trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-73 NIF comments.

    <fsasaki> issue-73: DECISION-DETAILS: follow-up needed

    <trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-73 NIF comments.

    <fsasaki> issue-72: DECISION-DETAILS: clarification

    <trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-72 Section 8.12 (Provenance
    Data Category).

    <fsasaki> issue-102: DECISION-DETAILS: borderline substantive

    <trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-102 I18N-ISSUE-242: Clarify
    case-insensitive match for domains [ITS-20].

    <fsasaki> issue-110: DECISION-DETAILS: borderline substantive

    <trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-110 change to langRule:
    precedence of xml:lang and lang.

    <fsasaki> close action-36

    <trackbot> Closed ACTION-36 Ongoing social media outreach of
    mlw.

    <fsasaki> action-215?

    <trackbot> ACTION-215 -- David Filip to generate a sample of
    testing involving XLIFF -- due 2013-02-04 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [32]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/ac
    tions/215

      [32] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/215

    <fsasaki> close action-309

    <trackbot> Closed ACTION-309 pick up disambiguation
    granuliartiy best practices topic later.

    <fsasaki> covered by ongoing disambig+term discussion

    <fsasaki> close actoin-342

    <fsasaki> close action-342

    <trackbot> Closed ACTION-342 create mt confidence score example
    as described in
    [33]http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-mlw-lt-irc#T14-50-33.

      [33] http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-mlw-lt-irc#T14-50-33.

    <fsasaki> above not needed anymore

    <fsasaki> close action-352

    <trackbot> Closed ACTION-352 Prepare status report on Task 5.1.

    <fsasaki> close action-353

    <trackbot> Closed ACTION-353 Prepare status report on Task 5.2.

    <fsasaki> close action-354

    <trackbot> Closed ACTION-354 provide input about wp1.

    <fsasaki> above done or tracked by felix

    <fsasaki> close action-374

    <trackbot> Closed ACTION-374 Distribute action items to define
    these tests and to provide guideance of how to formulate these
    tests against rcf2119 table.

    <fsasaki> close action-376

    <trackbot> Closed ACTION-376 Pull this material on best
    practice together onto wiki for people to comment on.

    <fsasaki> not needed for BP work now, covered with new tracker
    product
    [34]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/p
    roducts/9

      [34] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/products/9

    <fsasaki> close action-384

    <trackbot> Closed ACTION-384 Make agenda proposal for Prague
    meeting about the XML prague day.

    <fsasaki> close action-386

    <trackbot> Closed ACTION-386 Contact original commenter and see
    whether Yves additions to comment are what was meant there.

    <fsasaki> above done

    <fsasaki> close action-387

    <trackbot> Closed ACTION-387 Contact original commenter about
    real need of timestamp.

    <fsasaki> above done

    <fsasaki> close action-388

    <trackbot> Closed ACTION-388 Come back to chase and kevin about
    discussion of issue-71
    [35]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-irc#T08-34-49.

      [35] http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-irc#T08-34-49.

    <fsasaki> above done

    <fsasaki> close action-402

    <trackbot> Closed ACTION-402 Fix text and algo for domain case
    mapping.

    <fsasaki> above done, including test cases

    <fsasaki> close action-403

    <trackbot> Closed ACTION-403 Check availability of Berlin on
    17--18 June for face-to-face meeting..

    <fsasaki> close action-406

    <trackbot> Closed ACTION-406 Resize templates for posters from
    A1 to A0..

    <fsasaki> close action-409

    <trackbot> Closed ACTION-409 Follow up with Richard and Norbert
    on issue-92 and issue-103..

    <fsasaki> borderline "another last call cases": issue-63,
    issue-67

    <fsasaki> issue-71

    <trackbot> ISSUE-71 -- Section 5.8 (annotatorsRef) -- open

    <trackbot>
    [36]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/is
    sues/71

      [36] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/71

    <fsasaki> issue-102

    <trackbot> ISSUE-102 -- I18N-ISSUE-242: Clarify
    case-insensitive match for domains [ITS-20] -- open

    <trackbot>
    [37]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/is
    sues/102

      [37] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/102

    <fsasaki> issue-110

    <trackbot> ISSUE-110 -- change to langRule: precedence of
    xml:lang and lang -- open

    <trackbot>
    [38]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/is
    sues/110

      [38] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/110

    <fsasaki> and, in addition:

    <fsasaki> issue-68

    <trackbot> ISSUE-68 -- Disambiguation (and term) -- open

    <trackbot>
    [39]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/is
    sues/68

      [39] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/68

    <fsasaki> daveF: quite a number of borderline, so we might need
    another last call, let's check with the mgmt

    <fsasaki> felix: two unknowns: ruby and directionality related
    comments

    <fsasaki> daveF: even if we went to antother LC, I wouldn't
    change term and dissambiugation

    <fsasaki> felix: worried about implementation committments for
    terminology and dissambig

    <fsasaki> marcis: we have three for both terminology and
    disambiguation

    <fsasaki> daveF: clean solution would require 4 categories

    <fsasaki> marcis: and at the end it would be dropped

    <fsasaki> felix: I don't see consensus on how to move forward

    <fsasaki> .. let's see what the next weeks bring

BP publications

    <fsasaki> discussing where to publish BP documents - TR space,
    via i18n WG, via ITS IG

meeting schedule

    <fsasaki> f2f in bled and dublin confirmed

    <Arle> Send any presentations missing from
    [40]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/2012-ann
    ual-report/presentations.html to Arle

      [40] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/2012-annual-report/presentations.html

    <fsasaki> ACTION: felix to come back to links to implemenations
    - due 28 Feburary [recorded in
    [41]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action07]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-428 - come back to links to
    implemenations [on Felix Sasaki - due 1970-01-01].

final event ideas

    <fsasaki> yves: would be difficiutl to gather same crowd we
    have in rome 6 months later in europe

    <fsasaki> .. there are events at the end of the year in the
    states, e.g. Uncode / locworld etc. wich we could target

    <fsasaki> .. so we could try to do something as a group

    <fsasaki> .. use that as a complement to the european outreach
    we will do in Rome

    <fsasaki> unicode conf. is 21-13 october

best practices

    <fsasaki>
    [42]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/p
    roducts/9

      [42] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/products/9

    <fsasaki>
    [43]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/p
    roducts/8

      [43] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/products/8

    <fsasaki> xliff - ITS relation

    <fsasaki> disambiguation vs. term (depending on current
    discussion)

    <fsasaki> mapping to provenance - dave

    <fsasaki> xliff vs. ITS - dave, david, yves

    <fsasaki>
    [44]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/XLI
    FF_Mapping

      [44] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/XLIFF_Mapping

    <fsasaki> localization quality issue / rating related BP -
    arle, this summer, related to QTLaunchpad

    <fsasaki> how to use (populate & consume) mt-confidence and
    domain - ankit

    <fsasaki> above would include about m4loc

    <fsasaki>
    [45]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Use
    _cases_-_high_level_summary

      [45] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Use_cases_-_high_level_summary

    <fsasaki> how to use storage size - stephan

    <fsasaki> high level summary based on
    [46]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Use
    _cases_-_high_level_summary - felix

      [46] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Use_cases_-_high_level_summary

    <fsasaki>
    [47]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Del
    iverables

      [47] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Deliverables

    <fsasaki> co-ordinate EU reports
    [48]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Del
    iverables with BP documents

      [48] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Deliverables

    <fsasaki> [49]http://www.w3.org/2008/12/its-extensions

      [49] http://www.w3.org/2008/12/its-extensions

    <fsasaki> ACTION: felix to check xliff ITS mapping namespace
    hosting in w3c [recorded in
    [50]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action08]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-429 - Check xliff ITS mapping
    namespace hosting in w3c [on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-01-31].

    <fsasaki> use of term - stephan, tadej and marcis. Depends on
    how we proceed with term vs. disambiguation issue

disambiguation again

    <fsasaki> tadej: need to clarify: do we need granularity at
    all?

    <fsasaki> .. if not, we don't need to merge disambiguation and
    terminonlogy

    <fsasaki> .. will ask that question on the list

    <fsasaki> thanks to all for the meeting, adjourned!

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: ankit to change test suite for domain in HTML
    https://github.com/finnle/ITS-2.0-Testsuite/tree/master/its2.0/
    inputdata/domain/html , that is have "keywords" instead of
    "description" in the HTML and rules files [recorded in
    [51]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action04]
    [NEW] ACTION: arle to create an indicator for poster relations
    [recorded in
    [52]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action05]
    [NEW] ACTION: arle to do copy-edtiing on the spec - due 1 april
    [recorded in
    [53]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: Arle to fix section 8.9 note: "since the extra
    training resources does not justify the improvement in the
    output." -> "since the extra training resources do not justify
    the improvement in the output." [recorded in
    [54]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action03]
    [NEW] ACTION: felix to check xliff ITS mapping namespace
    hosting in w3c [recorded in
    [55]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action08]
    [NEW] ACTION: felix to come back to links to implemenations -
    due 28 Feburary [recorded in
    [56]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action07]
    [NEW] ACTION: felix to nudge people for a first poster draft -
    28 february [recorded in
    [57]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action06]
    [NEW] ACTION: felix to to edits for issue-113 [recorded in
    [58]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action02]

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________


     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [59]scribe.perl version
     1.137 ([60]CVS log)
     $Date: 2013-01-27 19:40:15 $

      [59] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [60] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Sunday, 27 January 2013 19:59:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:08:26 UTC