Re: [ISSUE-55][ACTION-510] Make LQI and LQR similar to mtConfidence in structure.

>
> *Leroy, can you check these examples align OK with our current
> implementation?*


Sure I will look at this today.

Thanks,
Leroy


On 9 July 2013 16:09, Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:

>  [moving to ITS IG list]
>
> Yves, Felix, David,
> Apologies for late come back on this. As discussed I agree with this
> change, that restriction is unhelpful.
>
> I've made those changes in the IG page for LQI on:
> http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/XLIFF_1.2_Mapping
>
> At the same time i moved over the provenance entry, expanding the example
> to show that both local and standoff styles can be used.
>
> Leroy, can you check these examples align OK with our current
> implementation?
>
> In the mean time I'll move over and check Text Analytics, LQR and MT
> confidence before next week's call.
>
> Some other thoughts about the XLIFF mapping document:
> 1) Do you think we need a quick intro to each data category just
> introducing its role in an XLIFF setting?
> 2) Several data categories may be used in several places in an XLIFF file.
> Would it be helpful to have some way of checking correct use of ITS in a
> XLIFF file against these best practices, e.g. a merged schema?
> 3) Should we provide best practice on where ITs elements and attributes,
> e.g. the stand-off element for proveneance and LQI, should go in the XLIFF
> structrue
> 4) Should it have a TOC to aid navigation?
> 5) In the section about ITs rules at the end, should we add some explicit
> text about the role of these rules and (not) using its rules otherwise in
> xliff (also - I corrected the name of targetPointerRule rule in the
> example.)
>
> cheers,
> Dave
>
> p.s. FYI - Leroy and the guys at UL have an initial XLIFF 2.0
> interoperability test running between SOLAS and CMS-LION
>
>
> On 17/05/2013 11:33, Yves Savourel wrote:
>
>  I agree: what is the rational for forcing the use of standoff notation
> for spans with a single issue?****
>
> ** **
>
> -    It may look a bit cramped to a human, but this is processed by
> machines.****
>
> -    Readers still have to implement both ways since it is just a
> recommendation.****
>
> ** **
>
> -ys****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org <fsasaki@w3.org>]
> *Sent:* Friday, May 17, 2013 3:47 AM
> *To:* Dave Lewis
> *Cc:* Phil Ritchie; public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org;
> kevin@spartanconsultinginc.com; chase@spartanconsultinginc.com
> *Subject:* Re: [ISSUE-55][ACTION-510] Make LQI and LQR similar to
> mtConfidence in structure.****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> I may have missed your answer to
>
> ****
>
> "It is recommended that only the the stand-off mode of annotation is used and that its:locQualityIssueType, its:locQualityIssueComment, locQualityIssueSeverity, its:locQualityIssueProfileRef and its:locQualityIssueEnabled are not used within trans-unit or alt-trans elements."****
>
>
> Asking here again since just yesterday I had students working with LQI
> annotations, and the inline approach was much easier in terms of creating,
> validating and analying the annotations.
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>
> Am 17.05.13 11:48, schrieb Dave Lewis:****
>
>  On 12/05/2013 14:06, Phil Ritchie wrote:****
>
> In relation to the question posed about LQR: Can you re-phrase the
> question. Are you asking if it is required at an inline level? ****
>
>
> Yes. Do you see LQR ever being used inline?
>
> Dave****
>
> ** **
>
>
>