- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 18:08:33 +0100
- To: "public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <51095391.7080601@w3.org>
Hi all,
minutes are at
https://www.w3.org/2013/01/30-mlw-minutes.html
and below as text. Some further info:
- the M3 milestone for the test suite will be reached by some on Monday.
That is OK - but if you expect even more delay, please let us know asap.
- since there is discussion about disambiguation (see below), we exclude
this for M3.
- we moved issue-75 ("domain") forward, and Christian has now the
related action item
https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/434 to
work on the note
- we moved issue-69 disambiguation vs. term forward. My understanding
from the conclusion on the call was:
* people would agree with dropping "granularity" or "qualifier" from the
data category
* people would agree with re-naming attributes and the data category: to
use "tan" instead of "disambig", e.g. "tan-ident-ref" instead of
"disambig-ident-ref". E.g. instead of
<span its-disambig-confidence="0.7"
its-disambig-class-ref="http://nerd.eurecom.fr/ontology#Place"
its-disambig-ident-ref="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dublin"
its-disambig-granularity="entity">Dublin</span>
We would say
<span its-tan-confidence="0.7"
its-tan-class-ref="http://nerd.eurecom.fr/ontology#Place"
its-tan-ident-ref="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dublin">Dublin</span>
* Tadej has now the action
https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/435 to
re-work the examples in the draft so that they use no granularity /
qualifier anymore, and "tan" instead of "disambig". Christian will help;
the results will go the list. Tadej / Christian: it would be great to
have that within this week, so that we can take it up on the Monday call.
* There was no push for introducing standoff (may it be with pointers
like in lq issue or the other way round) on the call.
* The open question to resolve issue-67 is: if we make above changes to
disambiguation: is there still a need to change terminology, in addition
to guidance / clarification? If you have thoughts on this please let
people know.
* Steps needed anyway for resolving issue-67 are: re-writing the now
"tan" section (previously "disambig"), and potentially rewriting /
merging "Terminology". Opinions on these topics or volunteers, please
step up.
Best,
Felix
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
MLW-LT Wg
30 Jan 2013
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Jan/0243.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2013/01/30-mlw-lt-irc
Attendees
Present
fsasaki, Karl, DomJones, dF, leroy, Naoto, pnietoca,
tadej, daveLewis, Ankit, Yves, omstefanov, swalter,
chriLi
Regrets
arle, jörg
Chair
felix
Scribe
karl
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Test suite update
2. [6]Action item health check
3. [7]Discuss domain issue
4. [8]disambiguation vs term
5. [9]poster draft
* [10]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
Test suite update
<fsasaki> [11]http://tinyurl.com/its20-testsuite-dashboard
[11] http://tinyurl.com/its20-testsuite-dashboard
fsasaki: tomorrow M3 for the Testsuite, only 45% coverage
currently
... are there any problems for the implementors?
david: should be fine till monday
phil: two new files are added and these will be added till next
week
<fsasaki>
[12]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgIk0-aoSKOadG
5HQmJDT2EybWVvVC1VbnF5alN2S3c#gid=0
[12] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgIk0-aoSKOadG5HQmJDT2EybWVvVC1VbnF5alN2S3c#gid=0
<fsasaki> "31st January 2013: M3 - Test files completely run.
To be moved forward at Prague f2f."
pnietoca: should we finish 100% for M3?
fsasaki: only 1 or 2 files left would be okay, but only 80%
should be discussed
pnietoca: 100% should be okay for linguaserve, but have to talk
to mauricio
<fsasaki> felix: please come back to me within this week if
100% from your organisaiton is *not* ok
Action item health check
<fsasaki>
[13]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/a
ctions/open?sort=due
[13] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/open?sort=due
fsasaki: there are lot of overdue action items
... most of items are related for editing
... should any action item be discussed?
dF: should the disambiguation be tested till M3?
... because lot of changes are expected there
fsasaki: no need to do testing for disambiguation
... for the M3
Discuss domain issue
<fsasaki>
[14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
lt-comments/2013Jan/0022.html
[14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0022.html
<fsasaki>
[15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
lt-comments/2013Jan/0182.html
[15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0182.html
fsasaki: would like to close this today
<fsasaki>
[16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
lt-comments/2013Jan/0191.html
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0191.html
fsasaki: many discussion till now
... are there any comments for the last proposal?
<Yves_> looks basically fine
fsasaki: link to showcase should be moved, because wiki will
probably removed at some point
chriLi: looking at the proposal right now
olaf: suggestion could ? that be moved to best practices?
<pnietoca> I replied this morning to this issue
[17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
lt-comments/2013Jan/0192.html
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0192.html
<Yves_> Just one note: "It is, however, not possible to assign"
: it's technically 'possible' but it's not meant to be used
that way.
<daveL> note there's a place holder for best practice docs on
wiki at:
<pnietoca> Felix has a point maybe a link to the wiki is not
the most appropriate
<daveL>
[18]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Bes
t_Practice_Documents
[18] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Best_Practice_Documents
fsasaki: we discussed in prague that we will write maybe more
of one of best practices
<omstefanov> thanks, dave, for the Best Practice Docs page
chriLi: we are on a good way
... but not right there now
<fsasaki>
[19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
lt-comments/2013Jan/0184.html
[19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0184.html
chriLi: yves example should be added to the note, to show how a
MT should handle it
<fsasaki> "For example you have a mapping as this:" - Yves'
example
<fsasaki> in above mail
<fsasaki> ACTION: christian to make re-write of note for
domain, taking Yves' example at
[20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
lt-comments/2013Jan/0184.html and jörgs proposal at
[21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
lt-comments/2013Jan/0184.html into account [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/30-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action01]
[20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0184.html
[21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0184.html
<trackbot> Created ACTION-434 - Make re-write of note for
domain, taking Yves' example at
[23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
lt-comments/2013Jan/0184.html and jörgs proposal at
[24]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
lt-comments/2013Jan/0184.html into account [on Christian Lieske
- due 2013-02-06].
[23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0184.html
[24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0184.html
df: its just a clarification? not a normative change?
fsasaki: it is a clarification
... any further comments on this topic?
disambiguation vs term
<fsasaki>
[25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
lt/2013Jan/0246.html
[25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Jan/0246.html
fsasaki: proposal how to structure the discussion
<fsasaki>
[26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
lt/2013Jan/0239.html
[26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Jan/0239.html
<fsasaki> <span its-tan-confidence="0.7"
its-tan-class-ref="[27]http://nerd.eurecom.fr/ontology#Place"<
28]http://nerd.eurecom.fr/ontology#Place>
its-tan-ident-ref="[29]http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dublin"<[30]
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dublin> its-term="no">Dublin</span>
[27] http://nerd.eurecom.fr/ontology#Place
[29] http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dublin
[30] http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dublin%3E
fsasaki: start the discussion today, here is another proposal
from marcis
... do we need standoff markup?
<fsasaki>
[31]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
lt/2013Jan/0246.html
[31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Jan/0246.html
tadej: how we can merge both data categories?
... if we merge them, than we can handle both independently?
fsasaki: do we really need to handle both categories
independently?
... there is no need for multilayer annotations, if we drop
this
tadej: don't have any objection, but marcis is not on the call
today
daveL: there are people who would have both categories
separately
<fsasaki>
[32]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
lt/2013Jan/0248.html
[32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Jan/0248.html
fsasaki: lot of discussion on the topic of levels, that would
be a change for disambiguation
tadej: that was my proposal to drop levels, which swalter
agreed
fsasaki: this would be a huge step forward for the discussion
to merge both categories
... is everyone fine with dropping the levels?
tadej: we can add a best practice for the case that someone
wants to point to a external resource
dLewis: agrees
<chriLi> Values for "qualifier": lexical, term, termCandidate,
ontological-class, ontological-entity;
<fsasaki> christian's inital proposal at
[33]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
lt-comments/2013Jan/0014.html
[33] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0014.html
<fsasaki> <span its-tan-confidence="0.7"
its-tan-class-ref="[34]http://nerd.eurecom.fr/ontology#Place"
its-tan-ident-ref="[35]http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dublin"
its-tan-type="
[36]http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-2275">Dublin</span>
[34] http://nerd.eurecom.fr/ontology#Place
[35] http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dublin
[36] http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-2275
chriLi: with dropping level we mean dropping these values?
fsasaki: we want to drop the complete field "qualifier"
... nobody really used this field in their workflow
tadej: is there a case where people can't to this with rdfa/a
or other methods - and this is not the case for us
dF: is the level a important part of the multilayer topic?
fsasaki: you can't talk about the one, without talking about
the other one
... should we keep its-tan-type?
chriLi: we should drop it
fsasaki: some consensus today - following some examples
<fsasaki> <span its-tan-confidence="0.7"
its-tan-class-ref="[37]http://nerd.eurecom.fr/ontology#Place"
its-tan-ident-ref="[38]http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dublin"
>Dublin</span>
[37] http://nerd.eurecom.fr/ontology#Place
[38] http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dublin
fsasaki: this would be example without the tan-type and level
<chriLi> You may want to add its-tan-term="yes"
fsasaki: we can't discuss this further because marcis is
missing today
... if we only rename attributes, then we maybe don't need
another last call
... this wouldn't influence the data category terminology
<fsasaki> ACTION: tadej to take care of disambig -> tan
examples [recorded in
[39]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/30-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-435 - Take care of disambig -> tan
examples [on Tadej ¦tajner - due 2013-02-06].
<omstefanov> I think we need to keep careful watch of Ma-rcis'
comments in 0239.html warning of what happens if we merge
terminology and disabiguation (or whatever it is called).
fsasaki: we don't rewrite the section, till the terminology
discussion is done
... marcis should be at the monday call, so the discussion will
be continued on monday
... any other comments?
poster draft
fsasaki: poster draft moved forward to 15th feb, everybody is
okay with that?
<omstefanov> bye and thanks, felix
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: christian to make re-write of note for domain,
taking Yves' example at
[40]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
lt-comments/2013Jan/0184.html and jörgs proposal at
[41]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
lt-comments/2013Jan/0184.html into account [recorded in
[42]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/30-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: tadej to take care of disambig -> tan examples
[recorded in
[43]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/30-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action02]
[40] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0184.html
[41] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0184.html
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [44]scribe.perl version
1.137 ([45]CVS log)
$Date: 2013-01-30 16:56:07 $
[44] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[45] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2013 17:09:03 UTC