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

If we take this approach, here is a pass at the information needed for #1 with changes in red bold

Value
uncategorized
Description
The issue either has not been categorized or cannot be categorized
Example
A new version of a tool returns information on an issue that has not been previously checked and that is not yet classified.
A text is defective in ways the defy categorization, such as the appearance of nonsense garbled text of unknown origin (e.g., a translation shows severe grammatical defects and appears unrelated to the source material)
Scope
S or T
Notes
This category has two the following uses:
A tool can use it to pass through quality data from another tool in cases where the issues from the other tool are not classified (for example, a localization quality assurance tool interfaces with a third-party grammar checker).	
A tool's issues are not yet assigned to categories, and, until an updated assignment is made, they may be listed asuncategorized. In this case it is recommended that issues be assigned to appropriate categories as soon as possible since uncategorized does not foster interoperability.
Uncategorized can be used where a portion of text is defective in a way that defies assignment to a category in either the originating system or in any other ITS localization quality markup to indicate that it is uncategorizable.
#2 would come along next year.

#3 probably wouldn't need much update at this point since their is only a slight expansion of meaning in this category. However, when QTLP's tool develops I could add it in. This would again be next year.

My guess, by the way, is that this can be seen as clarification of usage, rather than a substantive change, but we can see what others think…

-Arle



On 2012 Dec 12, at 06:17 , Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:

> Thank you, Jörg. Going the "stability path" seems also reasonable given this positive development
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Dec/0061.html
> 
> 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
> http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/Tool_specific_mappings#Mappings_for_Localization_Quality_Issue_Type
> http://www.w3.org/International/its/ig/its20-tool-specific-mappings.html
> 
> Arle, would that work for you? If yes, when could you do 1-3?
> 
> With regards to Phil's mail at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2012Dec/0010.html
> 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.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Felix
> 
> 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
>> 
> 
>