Re: [ISSUE 34] Potential problem with high-level quality issues

Sure - it's just that we would need to build test cases around this mapping
table. What happens in the Okapi / QADistiller row doesn't need to be the
same, but at some general level comparable.

Felix

2012/8/1 Phil Ritchie <philr@vistatec.ie>

> Can we introduce some indirection here:
>
> Can we make all 26 values normative and publish an annex which to the best
> of our abilities would list mappings between ours and any
> publishing/consuming tool?
>
> e.g.
>
>  ITS 2.0 Okapi QADistiller
>
> Phil.
>
>
>
>
>
> From:        Arle Lommel <arle.lommel@dfki.de>
> To:        Multilingual Web LT Public List <
> public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>,
> Date:        01/08/2012 16:02
> Subject:        Re: [ISSUE 34] Potential problem with high-level quality
> issues
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> Hello all,
>
> I was discussing the high-level quality issues with Felix this morning and
> we have an issue. If they are to be normative, then we will need to find at
> least two interoperable implementations *for each value*, not just for
> the mechanism as a whole, and to test those implementations against test
> cases. While that would not be hard for some like *terminology*, it would
> be difficult for others like *legal*, because, while they are used in
> metrics, they are not particularly embedded in tools that would produce or
> consume ITS 2.0 markup.
>
> One solution is to put the issue names in an informative annex and *very
> strongly recommend* that they be used. That approach is, I realize,
> unlikely to satisfy Yves, for good reason: if we cannot *know* what
> values are allowed in that slot, then we cannot reliably expect
> interoperability. At the same time, if we only go with those values for
> which we can find two or more interoperable implementations, that list of
> 26 issues will probably become something like six or eight, thereby leaving
> future tools that might address the other issues out in the cold.
>
> I have to confess that I do not see a solution to this issue right now
> since we really need the values to be normative but if we cannot test them
> in fairly short order they cannot be normative. The test cases must be more
> robust that simply seeing that a tool identifies an issue and passes it on:
> we also need to see that they do this consistently with each other, which
> is hard since the set of issues from the various tools only partially
> overlap.
>
> If anyone has any brilliant ideas on how to solve the issue, please feel
> free to chime in. We're still working on this and hope to find a way to
> move forward with normative values.
>
> Best,
>
> Arle
>
>
> ************************************************************
> 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
> ************************************************************
>



-- 
Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow