[Minutes] ITS IG call 2014-06-18 ...

are at
http://www.w3.org/2014/06/18-i18nits-minutes.html

and below as text. Next call will be in two weeks. We discussed again whether the open data mgmt document should be a note publication. No decision yet - but even if we go that route, we would publish a first draft in July and finalize after feedback later this year. Also, we discussed how to engage various other groups in the process and also related to MQM - details see below.

Next call will be in two weeks.

- Felix


   [1]W3C

      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -

                                 ITS IG

18 Jun 2014

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2014Jun/0016.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2014/06/18-i18nits-irc

Attendees

   Present
          DaveLewis, arle, felix, yves

   Regrets
          david, christian

   Chair
          felix

   Scribe
          fsasaki

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]roll call
         2. [6]Open Data Management position statement
         3. [7]xliff web IDL
         4. [8]MQM + ITS
         5. [9]aob
     * [10]Summary of Action Items
     __________________________________________________________

roll call

   checking attendees ...

Open Data Management position statement

   [11]https://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/Open_Data_Managem
   ent_for_Public_Automated_Translation_Services

     [11] https://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/Open_Data_Management_for_Public_Automated_Translation_Services

   dave: have a tbd section - one area is licensing
   ... that would take up e.g. work done in META-SHARE and tda

   yves: I have read the doc, didn't see any issues

   "tbd: purpose help to formulate reqdocs. then: mention
   projects."

   dave: trying to attract other projects - would be good to run
   this pass chris wendt
   ... there is not in the way of terminology integration
   ... also may be relevant for alolita
   ... from wikimedia

   "tbd: cef out of focus."

   " tbd: mention other standards explicitly? what is a standard?
   "

   dave: point to current projects - there is also ongoing work
   that we can point to
   ... e.g. bitext access on the web, we are doing that in the
   bpmlod group
   ... there is licensing work in the ld4lt group
   ... need to have a way to point to these group

   felix: raise awareness in above groups and make them aware that
   we'd like their input

   dave: also ontolex and the tbx / RDF work, need input from
   Philipp here
   ... I will present this in the MLi panel at the LT-Innovate
   event in brussels next week
   ... maybe have a little questionnaire that people can pick up
   to follow up

   "Open standards. Open standards are standards that can be
   implemented on a royalty-free basis, that is, without any
   licensing requirements."

   arle: need to add to the above: there needs to be a policy for
   maintaining them in an open way as well

   dave: bring up this week bpmlod call; had raised it at ld4lt
   last week.

   felix: I'll contact ontolex and alolita

   dave: if any of this feeds into the CEF call, that would help
   ... would help to get the right people on board here
   ... might help to talk to EU people to see if they have
   guidance

   "tbd: mention other standards explicitly? what is a standard?"

   dave: two elements of this:
   ... listing things that are already availabe
   ... you can say: relevant existing standards, and standards
   that are worked on: lemon, XLIFF 2.0, ...
   ... and then saying: where are the gaps?
   ... one objective is: we don't know the answers always - there
   are some areas in which gaps need to be filled and there may be
   new work to be done
   ... that may also help e.g. EU to decide what to support
   ... put in DCAT

   felix: MQM?

   arle: it is not a standard yet, but moving into that direction

   dave: so one could have several categories: final standard,
   draft standard, technology areas that need standardaration

   "Bitext Data Management Requirements" - here MQM would fit very
   well as s.t. being prepared

   scribe: e.g. lemon would very well
   ... in that way too
   ... section at the end - "gap analysis"
   ... table . we now have numbered requirements. we tick of
   maturity of avail. solutions

   felix will add at the beginning about intention to do an IG
   draft (to be discussed)

   dave: also have a contributors section

   arle: get feedback from gala too, contacting several people

   felix: have a section for mentioning meta-net and other efforts
   those those communitieswould benefit from this

   dave: good idea
   ... lot of mt researchers are now using wikipedia for mt
   training, maybe a good collab. point with meta-net, e.g.
   experience in a particular country

   felix: I'll check with the meta-net guys

   arle: josef v.g. may be the right person to check that

xliff web IDL

   felix describing web IDL choice options - web IDL for defining
   interfaces, plain json for serializing the current XML - XLIFF

   yves: web IDL relation is confusing (CR versus other draft)
   ... in XLIFF we need two things, both API and data format
   aspect
   ... API is not useful if you don't have a clear object
   definition

   dave: your existing API - is that a good model?

   yves: needs to be more generic
   ... main problem is data format - depends on what you want to
   represent
   ... e.g. how to represent inline code is quite complex, you
   have distinct solutions
   ... not sure on how to proceed

   dave: talked to david about this - general feeling is: inline
   codes dealing with overlapping annotations is in the heart of
   this

   yves: if this is then not XML people would see things
   differently
   ... inline representation is key
   ... will talk to david about this again e.g. on the next call

   arle: worth looping in linport in this, they are discussing
   APIs right now, trying to clarify relationsships to others

MQM + ITS

   dave: we had discussion in FEISGILTT about MQM and relationship
   to ITS "localization quality issue" types
   ... there then was exchange on the list about this, Arle
   clarifying things

   [12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2014
   Jun/0000.html

     [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2014Jun/0000.html

   dave: arle saying how to map MQM into ITS or into other things
   - is that correct?

   arle: to some extend. MQM allows you to declare that you check
   ... ITS can be more or less of what you check
   ... so you could declare an MQM model that is ITS
   ... the idea: ITS provides broad interop, if people map their
   categories they know what is there
   ... MQM would not know in advance what is in a metrics

   dave: in ITS you have the loc quality profile ref
   ... in the MQM doc you could put the reference to the precise
   MQM type
   ... so the mapping will be definitive
   ... MQM structure details would be lost or would need to be in
   the string of ITS locProfileRef

   arle: you would define a mapping and point to a file that has
   the mappings

   yves: I think in ITS you cannot declare things at the top

   Arle: ok
   ... the reference could point to an MQM declaration
   ... that looses the ability of what the overall profile is
   ... one could use MQM without having MQM specific markup in ITS

   dave: you hit all problems if you start with an XML vocabulary

   arle: felix had said a while ago if we should use RDF instead
   of XML - we may end up doing that for MQM (or have both)

   dave: sometimes people have a vocabulary and a document in
   parallel
   ... but you can put definitions into RDF and then generate an
   HTML document which is human readable
   ... what is your timeline on this, Arle?

   arle: development is planned to continue in qt21 and
   potentially in other projects

   dave: in ld4lt it works quite well to team up with people to do
   some specific work items, e.g. taking an existing model, do rdf
   related things - but the group who brings in the topic still
   owns it
   ... the benefit for the group who bring in the topic is more
   feedback and visibility, but they don't loose ownership
   ... good example is meta-share schema discussion
   ... I am one of the ld4lt co-chairs, we could bring it up on
   the ld4lt call next week (Thursday 3 p.m.)

   felix: arle could bring his material to the call and we'd see
   what the ontology engineers can do with that

   dave: agree. one reasons also why the MQM / RDF disucssion is
   interesting: they are opportunistics, using what is avail. from
   wikipedia or babelnet
   ... many resources are under active curation. being avail. to
   report such things back in an open way would be a great use
   case for MQM
   ... MQM would have a lot of the semantics for such error
   reporting

   arle: perfect, that is exactly what we want to do

   dave: great - I will email ld4lt group and CC Arle, saying we
   are planning to put it on the agenda

   arle: ok

   dave: and you can reply to that providing more info

   arle: ok

aob

   adjourned

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [13]scribe.perl version
    1.138 ([14]CVS log)
    $Date: 2014-06-18 13:10:05 $
     __________________________________________________________

     [13] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [14] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

   [Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11
Check for newer version at [15]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/
scribe/

     [15] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/@@@/chris wendt/
Succeeded: s/follow/follow up/
Succeeded: s/community, who /those communities/
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: fsasaki
Inferring Scribes: fsasaki
Present: DaveLewis arle felix yves
Regrets: david christian
Agenda: [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2014J
un/0016.html
Got date from IRC log name: 18 Jun 2014
Guessing minutes URL: [17]http://www.w3.org/2014/06/18-i18nits-minutes.h
tml
People with action items:

     [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2014Jun/0016.html
     [17] http://www.w3.org/2014/06/18-i18nits-minutes.html


   [End of [18]scribe.perl diagnostic output]

     [18] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm

Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2014 15:08:03 UTC