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

Are your assumptions including MT interop where the matching is through automation?



From: Arle Lommel []
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 1:09 PM
To: Jan Nelson
Cc: Felix Sasaki; Phil Ritchie; Multilingual Web LT Public List
Subject: Re: [ISSUE 34] Potential problem with high-level quality issues

Hi Jan,

I'm not too concerned about that since the boundaries of the category list I made are pretty clear and there are principles to guide selection in the case of ambiguities.

Arle Lommel
Berlin, Germany
Skype: arle_lommel
Phone (US): +1 707 709 8650[X]

Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse any typos.

On Aug 1, 2012, at 18:48, Jan Nelson <<>> wrote:

Thoughts about how to map "comparable"?  That fuzziness is where I think the QA issue is toughest.


From: Felix Sasaki [<>]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 9:35 AM
To: Phil Ritchie
Cc: Arle Lommel; Multilingual Web LT Public List
Subject: 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.


2012/8/1 Phil Ritchie <<>>
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?


ITS 2.0         Okapi   QADistiller


From:        Arle Lommel <<>>
To:        Multilingual Web LT Public List <<>>,
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.



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.<>

Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow

Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2012 20:21:17 UTC