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

2012/8/1 Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>

> I’m not sure I completely understand the requirement. For each value we
> need two applications that use it?****
>
> ** **
>
> Did we have such requirement for 1.0?
>

No, we didn't, since - see below - the number of values was very small and
easy to understand.

With the need (more on that later) to convince people working on the
content production side of the usefulness of our metadata, I think we have
a higher bar than for locNoteType.

Best,

Felix



> For example we have a locNoteType with ‘alert’ or ‘description’. Do we
> have two applications that generate those two values?****
>
> ** **
>
> Just wondering.****
>
> -ys****
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 01, 2012 5:22 PM
> *To:* Arle Lommel
> *Cc:* Multilingual Web LT Public List
>
> *Subject:* Re: [ISSUE 34] Potential problem with high-level quality issues
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi Arle, all,****
>
> ** **
>
> let me just add that for other data categories, we have only small set of
> predefined values - e.g. for "Translate" only "yes" or "no", or for
> localization note type "alert" or "description". Also, these values are
> distinct - you have either "yes" or "no", so there is no danger of doing
> the wrong thing then an application produces or consumes the values.
> Finally, the categorization of an error seems to be difficult, with so many
> categories being proposed.   ****
>
> ** **
>
> This situation led me to the thinking that we should set a high bar for
> the normative values - otherwise there won't be any interoperability of
> what implementations produce or consume, as Arle described. I don't see a
> clear way out, and I'm looking very much forward to feedback from
> implementors - Yves, Phil etc.****
>
> ** **
>
> Best,****
>
>  ****
>
> Felix****
>
> ** **
>
> 2012/8/1 Arle Lommel <arle.lommel@dfki.de>****
>
> 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****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> Felix Sasaki****
>
> DFKI / W3C Fellow****
>
> ** **
>



-- 
Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow