Solution via standoff markup ? (Re: Markup for quality)

Hi Arle, all,

I have given this another thought, and maybe ITS 2.0 already has the 
solution to the overlap problem.

This is what you proposed for mqm:

<p>Fifteen <mqm-startIssue type="markup, misplaced" id="1" /><em>relays 
<mqm-startIssue type="agreement" id ="2" />is</em><mqm-endIssue id="1" 
/> involved</mqm-endIssue id="2" /> in the operation.</p>

Now, in ITS 2.0 we have standoff markup. So far we haven't used it for 
representing overlap, but it seems to be straightforward:

<p>Fifteen <span its-loc-quality-issues-ref="#lqi1"><em>relays <span 
its-loc-quality-issues-ref="#lqi2">is</span></em></span><span 
its-loc-quality-issues-ref="#lqi2"> involved</span> in the operation.</p>

Here are the targets of the its-loc-quality-issues-ref attributes:

<its:locQualityIssues xml:id="lqi1" 
xmlns:its="http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its">
         <its:locQualityIssue itsx:mqmType="markup, misplaced"/>
</its:locQualityIssues>

<its:locQualityIssues xml:id="lqi2" 
xmlns:its="http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its">
         <its:locQualityIssue itsx:mqmType="agreement"/>
</its:locQualityIssues>

A query via e.g. XPath concatenating all content that has the standoff 
markup with xml:id="lq1" will give you this content (markup stripped out)
"relays is "
For xml:id="lq2" you get this
"is involved"
And that is what you want, no?

We don't say what an ITS 2.0 application should do with identical 
"its-loc-quality-issues-ref" values. Concatenating them like above seems 
like a reasonable interpretation for MQM. Thoughts?

Also, would you be availalbe to dial in for the f2f Monday afternoon or 
Tuesday afternoon to move this forward?

Best,

Felix

Am 10.06.13 11:26, schrieb Arle Lommel:
> Hi all,
>
> One of the issues Felix and I discussed for improving compatibility 
> between Mutlidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) (the QTLaunchPad 
> quality system originally derived from ITS 2.0) and ITS 2.0 is the 
> following:
>
> We need a way to mark up overlapping spans. For example, if you have 
> the following HTML5 segment:
>
>     <p>Fifteen <em>relays is</em> involved in the operation.</p>
>
>
> Which should be
>
>     <p><em>Fifteen relays</em> are involved in the operation.</p>
>
> You have two issues:
>
>   * The markup is misplaced (ITS 2.0 /markup/ and MQM /markup,
>     misplaced/, which is a subtype of /markup/)
>   * There is an agreement error (ITS 2.0 /grammar/ and MQM
>     /agreement/, which is a subtype of /grammar/)
>
>
> The mapping from MQM to ITS 2.0 is clear here, but we need a way to 
> mark up the overlapping spans. So far we have internally used 
> something like this:
>
>     <p>Fifteen *<mqm-startIssue type="markup, misplaced" id="1"
>     />*<em>relays *<mqm-startIssue type="agreement" id ="2"
>     />*is</em>*<mqm-endIssue id="1" />* involved*</mqm-endIssue id="2"
>     />* in the operation.</p>
>
>
> We want a good path to interoperability with ITS. So we need a way to 
> put the following information in the document on overlapping spans 
> using /local/ markup:
>
>     its-loc-quality-issue-type="grammar"
>     itsx-mqm-issue-type="agreement" its-loc-quality-comment="should be
>     &quot;relays are&quot;" (etc…)
>
> Any suggestions for how to handle this use case? We want to make it as 
> easy as possible to use MQM and ITS together, where MQM provides 
> mechanisms for greater granularity while still retaining compatibility 
> with ITS and ITS provides a way to share MQM data at a common 
> granularity with other systems.
>
> Right now we are working to ensure that ITS 2.0 will be fully 
> conformant to MQM (with a few simple mappings for things like issue 
> type names) and that MQM will have a clean mapping to ITS 2.0. (Note 
> as well that MQM will provide ways to define quality profiles and 
> handle some things not covered by ITS, like sharing scoring methods, 
> possible data category selections, etc., so MQM adds significant 
> capability to ITS 2.0 and isn't just an alternative, but rather a 
> larger way of handling some details out of scope for ITS 2.0.
>
> I'll write more up later, but if anyone has good ideas for how to hand 
> the overlapping spans in an ITS 2.0-friendly way, please make suggestions.
>
> Best,
>
> Arle