Re: issue-60 (Re: Comment on ITS 2.0 specification WD)

That's a very good solution to avoid a possible type value tsunami and 
additional LC (if this is really the case with such an addition).

By the way, your "1862" example is a candidate for the "mistranslation" 
type.

Cheers -- Jörg

On Dec 11, 2012 at 18:31 (UTC+1), Arle Lommel wrote:
> The other alternative is that we expand the semantics of "uncategorized"
> slightly to allow for a more naturalistic interpretation such that it
> doesn't mean "we haven't categorized it" to "we haven't or can't
> categorize it". That would be satisfactory as well, I think, and less of
> a change.
>
> -Arle
>
>
>
> On 2012 Dec 11, at 18:27 , Arle Lommel <arle.lommel@dfki.de
> <mailto:arle.lommel@dfki.de>> wrote:
>
>> Jörg is correct here that nothing has this already. This is really
>> looking forward to QT Launchpad work. If saying "nobody has
>> implemented this so far" disqualifies it, then we would be forced to
>> use "uncategorized" and add some custom markup. That wouldn't be the
>> end of the world for us, but it would be nice to have.
>>
>> However, see my last mail about how I see this as different.
>>
>> (I can say, up front, that if this isn't accepted I won't hold
>> anything up over it, so the moment this causes real problems, we can
>> drop it.)
>>
>> -Arle
>>
>> On 2012 Dec 11, at 18:15 , Jörg Schütz <joerg@bioloom.de
>> <mailto:joerg@bioloom.de>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Felix,
>>>
>>> Since an additional value doesn't actually harm the type list which
>>> certainly can be seen as open ended (but still backward compatible),
>>> the need for a subsequent LC is questionable.
>>>
>>> Nevertheless, the proposed quality type value "unintelligible" for
>>> the described output case might be controversial because it does not
>>> indicate/reflect a quality consideration as the other types in the
>>> list do. The QT Launchpad project should therefore consider to use
>>> "uncategorized" because this value might indicate the "trashy" quality.
>>>
>>> And TMK, I'm not aware of any language proofing technology that uses
>>> "unintelligible" has a quality value.
>>>
>>> Cheers -- Jörg

Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2012 19:57:57 UTC