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

New dial in details to come (Re: [Minutes] Prague f2f (draft) and Monday call)

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:37:51 +0100
Message-ID: <510646EF.20607@w3.org>
To: "public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Hi all,

as it seems I really can't be on the call, apologies. Arle will provide 
new dial in details later. Please join http//irc.w3.org , channel 
#mlw-lt, to make sure that you have the latest dial in info.

Best,

Felix

Am 27.01.13 20:58, schrieb Felix Sasaki:
> 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 Monday, 28 January 2013 09:38:47 UTC

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