RE: MT Confidence mapping to XLIFF 2

Hi Yves, Jörg, all,

> Hi Jörg,
>
> Thanks for the suggestion. But while the annotatorsRef should be used to
> specify the agent doing the annotation, I'm not sure how an ITS processor
> could use it to map the value from matchQuality: one could identify the
> tool and assume an implicit mapping, but normally ITS uses global rules to
> indicate that type of information.
>
> For example:
>
> <its:langRule selector="//p" langPointer="@mylangattribute"/>
>
>  says to the ITS processor that the attribute mylangattribute in the <p>
> element is the same as xml:lang.
>
> We would need something like:
>
> <its:mtConfidenceRule selector="//mtc:match"
> mtConfidencePointer="@matchQuality"/> (and "@matchQuality" should really
> be some kind of XPath expression that divides the value of matchQuality by
> 100).

That would be "@matchQuality div 100". You could implement that in a non
standard manner with "itsx:mtConfidencePointer" - but if we want to
recommen this for the XLIFF <> ITS mapping, it's probably not a good idea.

>
> Now, this is only if we want to always have a valid ITS rule useable by
> ITS-only processors in XLIFF documents. So far all the mappings we have
> respect that.

Makes sense to me, hard to achieve in a standard way for XLIFF2 <> ITS2 here.

>
> Note also that, technically, we can't really use its:mtConfidence directly
> in XLIFF2 either because an extension or a module (I quote [1]): "...MUST
> NOT provide the same functionality as an existing XLIFF core or module
> feature, ..." And matchQuality is certainly providing same functionality
> as its:mtConfidence (even the note in section 5.1.6.2 give that as an
> example in the note: "... a Machine Translation self-reported confidence
> score."

Any chance to convince the XLIFF tc to use 0-1, like ITS2? What is the
rationale behind the different value?

Best,

Felix

>
> Cheer,
> -yves
>
> [1]:
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/xliff/xliff-core/v2.0/xliff-core-v2.0.html#ext-constraints
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jörg Schütz [mailto:joerg@bioloom.de]
> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:13 AM
> To: public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: MT Confidence mapping to XLIFF 2
>
> Hi Yves,
>
> What about using the annotatorsRef/its-annotators-ref attribute for this
> purpose, i.e. to provide additional information as foreseen in the MT
> Confidence specification?
>
> Cheers -- Jörg
>
> On Mar 22, 2014 at 14:53 (CET), Yves Savourel wrote:
>>> ...and there is no way to even declare qualityMatch as the holder for
>>> the mtConfidence value because there is no mtConfidenceRef attribute
>>> on the mtConfidenceRule element.
>>
>> Correction: I meant mtConfidencePointer not mtConfidenceRef
>>
>> -ys
>>
>
>
>
>

Received on Sunday, 23 March 2014 12:48:25 UTC