- From: Arle Lommel <arle.lommel@dfki.de>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 11:49:35 +0200
- To: David Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>, Christian Lieske <christian.lieske@sap.com>, "public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org" <public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org>, Aljoscha Burchardt <aljoscha.burchardt@dfki.de>, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>, Phil Ritchie <philr@vistatec.ie>
Hi all, Further to our discussions about MQM and ITS, I have proposed a preliminary XML schema for representing MQM metrics. It is pretty straight-forward and I have put in some internal commenting to explain it: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/223919/qtlaunchpad/mqmMetric.xsd I have also created a sample metrics definition file containing the ITS 2.0 types plus one user-defined issue type (just to show how MQM can be extended as needed): https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/223919/qtlaunchpad/sampleMetric.xml I put these out as a starting point for a discussion about how to better integrate MQM and ITS 2.0 at the formal level. As you will see in the schema, I have changed the MQM token names to conform to ITS 2.0 locQualityIssueType values where this can be done. It shows the default mapping between the (full) MQM set and ITS 2.0 issue types. It also shows those values that are more (or less) granular than ITS 2.0 in a separate section. The mapping for those values is not shown. I think the next step may be to have a call with interested parties (Yves and Phil, I'm hoping you are interested, so I'm adding you to this mail) to discuss what makes sense and how best to ensure that there is an easy path from existing ITS 2.0 support to MQM support. I hope that this sort of formal representation will help in that discussion by giving a more concrete form to the discussion. Felix, feel free to schedule some time in an upcoming ITS Interest Group meeting when it is appropriate. Best, Arle
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2013 09:50:06 UTC