Re: Relation between MQM and ITS localization quality - rethought

Thanks Felix. See below:

On 2014 Jun 6, at 09:25 , Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi Arle and all,
> 
> thanks a lot for the clarification, Arle, that helps me and others a lot I’m sure. One concrete proposal about two points you make:
> 
> „ITS 2.0 is the mechanism for supporting blind interchange of quality data and for making MQM data accessible to processes that may not be MQM-aware.“
> „I think Ocelot would be a prime candidate for MQM, actually, while the benefit for CheckMate is less clear.“
> 
> Ocelot currently is not MQM aware. There is a workflow to use Okapi Rainbow (not checkmate) to generate ITS2 localization quality issue metadata and then review it in Ocelot. See e.g. the XLIFF that is generated via Rainbow on slide 41 of 
> http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/images/7/76/Icu37-sasaki-lieske.pdf
> can be used out of the box for quality issue review and XLIFF editing in Ocelot. It would now be great to implement the same workflow (generating in Okapi (Rainbow) and using in Ocelot) for MQM to see how that relates to ITS. 
> 
> That is an implementation driven approach and it could help a lot to get things clear (e.g. Ocelot currently visualizes ITS2 LQI metadata - if MQM information is available would it visualize both, just one, etc.) both for uses and implementers. If you think this makes sense let me know, I’m happy to help.

I’ll talk to Phil as he expressed willingness to do this some time ago but we were tied up in other things. I think it would be easy enough for Ocelot to visualize MQM data. When you are back in Berlin, Felix, let’s look at the markup section and see if we need to improve it before talking to Phil. The issue types in MQM are stable enough to implement, so the only question would be about the XML markup, specifically about how to declare the MQM namespace. We’d also need to make a real schema for MQM, but it should be very simple.

I’ve not discussed with Yves about MQM and Rainbow. Maybe it makes sense to set up a call for anyone interested in this topic (at least Arle, Felix, Phil, and Yves) to discuss this.

> A side note: at the FEISGILTT localization world event this week the XLIFF TC discussed future feature of XLIFF. 2.0 is done, so what comes next? ITS2 is a hot candidate, but the XLIFF TC discussed at the FEISGILTT event in public to use the following strategy: only feature proposals that prove interoperable implementation support will be adopted in a new version of XLIFF. That is another argument to try to make these things clear by working on implementations.

It’s the best approach. Too many standardization efforts focus on defining the standard and then getting implementations, by which time problems are baked into the standard.

> Finally a question which is probably revenant for many on this list: is there a way to follow the MQM development, e.g. a public list somewhere to subscribe to or a wiki to contribute to? In that way were’d be no question about what the latest state about the relation to ITS2 etc. is, people could just have a look and comment. (I saw that the MQM draft says „send feedback to info@qt21.eu“, so my question is really about a way to subscribe to a list / be always up to date / follow previous discussions etc.)

We need to do a better job here. Let me ask internally about setting up an MQM-specific mailing list and wiki.

Best,

Arle