- From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 07:58:32 -0700
- To: <public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org>
Just a minor note to Phil: Since this value is about stating there is a "lack of conformance" would it make sense to name it "non-conformance" (or something similar)? rather than "conformance". For example we have "misspelling" rather than "spelling" to indicate a spelling problem. It would possibly work also better with severity as the "severity for a non-conformance" maybe make more sense than a "severity for a conformance"? I'm not requesting a change, just raising the idea. You English native speakers know better what make sense. cheers, -ys -----Original Message----- From: Dr. David Filip [mailto:David.Filip@ul.ie] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 2:57 AM To: Felix Sasaki Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org Subject: Re: issue-63 (Re: Comment on ITS 2.0 specification WD - "conformance" Issue Type) OK with me, if no objections come.. I just won't make any changes to the comments disposition until the co-editor action is performed. I will just record the last call for consensus.. Rgds 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 Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote: > 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.h >> tml (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-comme >>>> nts >>>> /2012Dec/0020.html >>>> and the "existing tools" aspect >>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comme >>>> nts >>>> /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 Friday, 22 February 2013 14:59:03 UTC