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

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

From: Serge Gladkoff <sgladkoff@logrus.ru>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 15:04:55 +0000
To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>, "public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2683F0C545BDA044B0DB00EBDE95F5F350B651E6@SRV-MAIL3.logrus.ru>
Dear Colleagues,

I am sorry, I am on another call ☹, still continues; I’ll try to join if I can.

Regards,
Serge




From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:38 PM
To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Subject: New dial in details to come (Re: [Minutes] Prague f2f (draft) and Monday call)

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 Štajner -

   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<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/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<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm>

     [60] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/





Received on Monday, 28 January 2013 15:05:41 UTC

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