Re: [ISSUE-1] ITS2.0-to-XLIFF1.2 mapping: updates to LQR, mtConfidence and text analysis

Thanks for the feedback Yves, comments inline:

On 23/07/2013 07:53, Yves Savourel wrote:
> Hi Dave, all,
>
>> 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.
> Yes, I think that was the conclusion.
>
fine, lets leave it as is.


>> 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
> I don't have a strong opinion either way for inline LQR mapping.
> But if we don't have inline mapping for LQR, the question is what do we do when we find one in the original document? We just ignore
> it and don't map it?
>
> Note that the specification simply says "...is used to express an overall measurement of the localization quality of a document or
> an item in a document." And "item" could be any element, including a span-like one.
>
This is true. This i similar to the point you make below about 
mtconfidence, i.e. whether the mapping is only concerned about how to 
carry ITs from an external format into XLIFF, or whether it should also 
give best practice about how to _add_  ITS to an XLIFF document as it is 
processed by different tools (excluding extraction and reassembly).

It may not be important for LQR, we could just support it inline without 
the comment about whether it is better used for voting than rating. I 
was in two mind actually as i added that - it come down to the nature of 
the document. Should it be just a bare ampping doc, or should it offer 
some best practice advice to encourage sensible use of ITS when being 
added to an existing XLIFF? Perhaps at the very least these different 
type of 'best practice' within the document
- thoughts?

>> 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.
> While I was fixing examples there I was taken by some fever of simplification and edited most of that text. (Sorry Dave. But I can
> put it back as needed). Actually the part about using annotatorsRef on different alt-trans was useful and I'll put it back.
>
> But there was a part about what to do when copying an alt-trans translation into target:
>
> "In addition, if the content of an alt-trans target element is copied verbatim to the target element of a trans-unit, i.e. no
> post-editing is conducted on the MT translation, then the confidence value can be copied to a its:mtConfidence for the target
> element in the trans-unit."
>
> I think those type of processing expectation/requirements must not be there. The document provides a mapping it shouldn't tell
> people how to perform operations.
>

see above..... and below...



>
>> 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.
> I think (especially based on my better understanding of what MT Confidence means now) it's unlikely to be used lower than the
> segment level.
I tend to agree, but then excluding it is actually the type of 
'adding-ITS-to-XLIFF' guideance you are talking about above - is it not?

sorry I can't make the call tomorrow.

Dave

>
> Cheers,
> -yves
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2013 02:47:17 UTC