- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 00:30:48 +0100
- To: public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
+1. I agree that this would not be a big issue. Felix Am 21.02.13 00:25, schrieb Yves Savourel: > Hi David, Phil, all, > > To be honest I'm not sure why adding this item in the list of values for issue type would be a big problem. > We are making much more demanding changes to the specifications in other places. > > Phil noted 2 possible users for the values, an when you look at http://www.w3.org/International/its/ig/its20-tool-specific-mappings.html (which lists the origin of the current type values), you can see several values that have only one declared 'user'. > > I think that value could be useful (as long as its difference with the Localization Quality Rating is well explained). > > cheers, > -yves > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dr. David Filip [mailto:David.Filip@ul.ie] > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 6:55 AM > To: Phil Ritchie > Cc: Dave Lewis; public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org > Subject: Re: issue-63 (Re: Comment on ITS 2.0 specification WD - "conformance" Issue Type) > > Phil, trying to see if this has moved. There has been no traffic on this one as of Feb 5 and the meeting of Feb 6 seems only to have restated that the category would be produced and consumed between Digital Linguistics and Vistatec. > > While I am aware that this would formally provide two implementers, my impression is that this new value has not had sufficient traction. > Any thoughts, comments? > Thanks > dF > > Dr. David Filip > ======================= > LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS > University of Limerick, Ireland > telephone: +353-6120-2781 > cellphone: +353-86-0222-158 > facsimile: +353-6120-2734 > mailto: david.filip@ul.ie > > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Phil Ritchie <philr@vistatec.ie> wrote: >> Dave >> >> Digital Linguistics will implement as "producer" and VistaTEC will >> implement as "consumer". >> >> Phil. >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie> >> To: public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org, >> Date: 03/02/2013 19:59 >> Subject: Re: issue-63 (Re: Comment on ITS 2.0 specification WD - >> "conformance" Issue Type) >> ________________________________ >> >> >> >> Hi Phil, >> We need to reach a resolution on ISSUE-63, on the inclusion of the >> suggested conformance type to the values for lqi type. >> >> As discussed on the 7th Jan call >> (http://www.w3.org/2013/01/07-mlw-lt-minutes.html#item04), to advance >> this we need to find another supporter who'd be willing to implement >> this. Did you find anyone else interested in adding this type? >> >> I suggest we review the status of this on this wed (6th Feb) call, but >> if we can find no one else who is interested then we reject this comment. >> >> cheers, >> Dave >> >> >> On 14/12/2012 16:49, Phil Ritchie wrote: >> All >> >> Per sample output: >> >> !DOCTYPE html >> <html> >> <head> >> </head> >> <body> >> <span its-loc-quality-issues-type="conformance" >> its-loc-quality-severity="2.45">En outre, vous pouvez sélectionner >> l'option capture d'écran, ce qui permet de prendre une capture d'écran >> n'importe où dans Windows et l'insérer dans votre document.</span> >> <span its-loc-quality-issues-type="conformance" >> its-loc-quality-severity="1.46">Partage de documents a également été >> améliorée, avec plusieurs personnes de travailler sur un document en >> même temps en ligne, même si je n'étais pas en mesure de tester cette >> fonctionnalité.</span> >> <span its-loc-quality-issues-type="conformance" >> its-loc-quality-severity="4.3">À l'instar des autres applications >> Office 2010, Excel dispose de nouveaux outils pour le partage des >> données avec d'autres personnes, y compris plusieurs personnes >> travaillant sur un document à la fois.</span> >> <body> >> </html> >> >> Existing tools that would utilise the the error types are Review >> Sentinel published by Digital Linguistics (http://www.digitallinguistics.com). >> Implementation could be done by late February 2013. Also, the VistaTEC >> Reviewer's Workbench as part of our deliverables. Some implementation >> dependency upon mapping in Xliff. >> >> Phil. >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> >> To: Phil Ritchie <philr@vistatec.ie>, >> Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org >> Date: 14/12/2012 09:46 >> Subject: issue-63 (Re: Comment on ITS 2.0 specification WD - >> "conformance" Issue Type) >> ________________________________ >> >> >> >> Thanks, Phil. This is now issue-63. When we discuss this we need to >> take the "stability aspect" >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments >> /2012Dec/0020.html >> and the "existing tools" aspect >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments >> /2012Dec/0004.html >> See in the latter mail the part >> "the other types where based on what existing tools or standards >> initiatives produce. " >> >> Can you provide some input on that part? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Felix >> >> Am 14.12.12 08:27, schrieb Phil Ritchie: >> I would like to propose the addition of "conformance" to Appendix C >> (Values for the Localization Quality Issue Type). >> >> The values in the appendix cover specific and discrete classes of >> error (putting "other" and "unintelligible" to one side). When you >> start to apply new text classification based quality checking methods >> to text several error classes may combine in subtle ways to produce a >> measure of quality that is "aggregate" across error types but >> none-the-less accurately indicative that something is wrong. For >> example, a target sentence may be deemed to have poor conformance when >> measured against a corpus of domain relevant reference translations. A >> score would reflect this poor conformance but the underlying errors >> within the sentence could be a mixture of grammar, spelling, style >> and/or terminology. In such instances you may not need to explicitly >> enumerate all of the combining errors and the extent of their contribution to the score, but just classify it under and umbrella term of "conformance". >> >> The proposed information for the "conformance" value would be as follows: >> >> Value >> >> conformance >> >> Description >> >> The content is deemed to have a level of conformance to a reference corpus. >> Reflects the degree to which the text conforms to a reference corpus >> given an algorithm which combines several classes of error type to >> produce an aggregate rating. Higher values reflect poorer conformance. >> >> Example >> >> "The harbour connected which to printer is busy or configared not properly." >> In a system which uses classification techniques this would be deemed >> to have poor conformance. The poor conformance is a function of the >> combined incorrect terminology, wrong spelling and bad grammar. >> >> Scope >> >> S or T >> >> Notes >> >> Reflects the degree to which the text conforms to a reference corpus >> given an algorithm which combines several classes of error type to >> produce an aggregate rating. Higher values reflect poorer conformance. >> >> Phil Ritchie >> >> >> ************************************************************ >> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and >> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they >> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify >> the sender immediately by e-mail. >> >> www.vistatec.com >> ************************************************************ >> >> >> ************************************************************ >> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and >> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they >> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify >> the sender immediately by e-mail. >> >> www.vistatec.com >> ************************************************************ >> >> >> ************************************************************ >> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and >> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they >> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify >> the sender immediately by e-mail. >> >> www.vistatec.com >> ************************************************************ >
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2013 23:31:14 UTC