W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org > December 2012

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

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 06:17:25 +0100
Message-ID: <50C81365.2000700@w3.org>
To: public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
Thank you, Jörg. Going the "stability path" seems also reasonable given 
this positive development

So the actions needed would be

1) clarification of "uncategorized"
2) having an example that demonstrates the usage in the MT scenario - 
not necessarily in the spec, but as part of best practices and to see 
the annotation the qt launchpad project would produce
3) update

Arle, would that work for you? If yes, when could you do 1-3?

With regards to Phil's mail at
I see this as a different topic, but would prefer not to add values or 
attributes at this time, like with issue-60. Phil, if you still need 
this please create a seperate comment.



Am 11.12.12 20:57, schrieb Jörg Schütz:
> 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 Wednesday, 12 December 2012 05:17:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:32:25 UTC