Re: issue-63 (Re: Comment on ITS 2.0 specification WD - "conformance" Issue Type)

Hi Phil again,

Am 21.02.13 07:50, schrieb Phil Ritchie:
> Thanks for your support Yves.
>
> I actually met with McAfee yesterday where I talked through our poster
> [ and unofficially practiced my presentation ;-) ] and whilst I cannot say
> they will be an implementer in the short term we did discuss real workflow
> scenarios where my requested attribute value would be used.
>
> I have met all of the formal requirements, it's certainly less work than
> some of the other refactoring and no-one has raised any objections so can
> we please just accept it at this stage?

Just to be explicit and for the record in this thread too: fine by me. 
Let's have one more call about this, and if nobody disagrees, an action 
item for a co-editor to make the edit in the spec.

Best,

Felix

>
> Phil
>
>
>
> On 20 Feb 2013, at 23:25, "Yves Savourel" <ysavourel@enlaso.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>> ************************************************************
>
> ************************************************************
> 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 Thursday, 21 February 2013 15:01:13 UTC