- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:13:06 +0100
- To: public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
Hi Jörg, all, I tried to implement this in the draft, see http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#lqissue-typevalues If there is no disagreement I would close the issue on the monday call. Best, Felix Am 12.12.12 14:47, schrieb Jörg Schütz: > Hi Arle, > > Some corrections and amendments for #1: > > (1) A text is defective in ways the defy categorization, ... => A text > is defective in ways to defy categorization, ... > > (2) (e.g., a translation shows severe grammatical defects and appears > unrelated to the source material) => (e.g., a translation shows an > unintelligible result and/or appears unrelated to the source material) > > Cheers -- Jörg > > On Dec 12, 2012 at 09:21 (UTC+1), Arle Lommel wrote: >> 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 >> <mailto: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 >
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2012 15:13:35 UTC