- From: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 02:26:24 +0100
- To: public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org
Hi All, I've raised and opened this issue for the ITS IG (I've raised a corresponding XLIFF2.0 mapping issue also), and closed the corresponding MLW-LT ISSUE (55) with a pointer to this new IG issue. I've made the associated updates with associated questions. I'd be grateful if anyone could check through these and respond to the questions: 1) http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/XLIFF_1.2_Mapping#Text_Analysis note: recommends only in-line use using xlf:mrk with mtype="phrase" as I recall this is unchanged from Bled. 2) http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/XLIFF_1.2_Mapping#Localization_Quality_Rating Where there is an open question on whether its appropriate to use in-line - we didn't resolve this when we discussed in on the mlw-lt list earlier in the year - see thread starting at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013May/0095.html Any views, especially Phil? 3) http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/XLIFF_1.2_Mapping#MT_Confidence This has been reworked to reflect the outcomes of the discussion in the first day at Bled, i.e. _not_ to overload existing XLIFF origin and match-quality attributes as previously proposed. I also added some guideance on option for annotatorRef when multiple engines provide confidence scores. Comments welcome on these. Also there was note indicating that we didn't think inline confidence scores were appropriate. Are we happy to rule this out - Declan, Ankit, Pedro? I've certainly seen some acadmic paper where differential word or phrase confidence scores within a single segement are displayed to the posteditor as a guide. talk to you on the call Wednesday, Dave
Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2013 01:26:50 UTC