Re: [Minutes] MLW-LT working group call 2012-08-02

Thanks for the minutes, Felix, they look good.

Just that the "band characters" should read "banned characters" as in
forbidden..

I normally do not care much for typos, but this one could be potentially
misleading :-0

Cheers
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, Aug 2, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:

> ... are at http://www.w3.org/2012/08/02-mlw-lt-minutes.html and below as
> text.
>
> Felix
>
>    [1]W3C
>
>       [1] http://www.w3.org/
>
>                                - DRAFT -
>
>                                  mlw-lt
>
> 02 Aug 2012
>
>    [2]Agenda
>
>       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Aug/0057.html
>
>    See also: [3]IRC log
>
>       [3] http://www.w3.org/2012/08/02-mlw-lt-irc
>
> Attendees
>
>    Present
>           Arle, davidF, declan, des, dom, felix, milan, jirka,
>           shaun, leroy, pedro, philr, michael, tadej
>
>    Regrets
>    Chair
>           David
>
>    Scribe
>           Arle, Felix, tadej
>
> Contents
>
>      * [4]Topics
>          1. [5]charter change
>          2. [6]call for consensus on special requirements
>          3. [7]Named Entity/Disambiguation
>          4. [8]mtConfidence
>          5. [9]issue-29 progress
>          6. [10]issue-34 (quality)
>          7. [11]house keeping
>          8. [12]aob
>      * [13]Summary of Action Items
>      __________________________________________________________
>
> charter change
>
>    david: I see impact on two levels
>    ... good to be official part of HTML, good for our prestige
>    ... but it will also force us to be more consicse , more
>    compact
>    ... I agree, we need to make the cut really soon
>    ... and what we put out of scope in the first wave
>
>    Felix: Some background why this happened. In the original
>    charter we said we would define metadata for HTML5. We would
>    use RDFa and Microdata. This approach is difficult. Jirka, in
>    discussion with the HTML group, was pointed to a solution, to
>    define its- attributes.
>    ... This mechanism was not created by us, but was advocated
>    because namespaces are not possible in HTML5, but this is a
>    replacement for that.
>    ... W3C international discussion did not say it was a wrong
>    approach, but rather that we need to coordinate this work with
>    the HTML5 working group, that we keep them aware and are OK
>    with it.
>    ... But what does it mean that they are OK with it? One thing
>    is that it does *not* mean we are adding attributes to HTML5
>    itself.
>    ... Rather we need a review from the HTML5 working group that
>    they are OK with our approach. It sounds like a minor
>    difference, but to come back to the process, adding attributes
>    to HTML5 would be adding to the work done in HTML5. We cannot
>    do that. HTML5 is in last call and nothing can be added. All
>    that we are doing is defining attributes and getting the
>    blessing of the HTML that we are following the right approach.
>    ... We need to change the charter for this because we said we
>    would not invent our attributes, but instead use RDFa and
>    microdata, but we are inventing our own attributes. The change
>    in charter is to make them aware that we are doing this.
>    ... In terms of timing, it is important that we do this now
>    before we finalize the draft so that we can move forward with
>    out plan.
>    ... Last point: as David said, this has good parts and bad
>    parts. The good part is that we now have more interest from the
>    HTML community and working group in our work. That interest, I
>    know from experience, is not easy. This is all public, btw.,
>    you can and should let people know.
>    ... The bad aspect is what David said: we can be motivated to
>    be as web content-producer digestible/understandable as
>    possible. We need to be careful that what we describe and
>    define and keep that perspective in mind: we need to make it
>    understandable to people outside of localization. Look at what
>    Arle did in changing attribute names to make them more
>    understandable.
>    ... Like David said, it also means we need to close the set of
>    data categories we want to deal with.
>    ... We may still add mtConfidence, but aside from that, it
>    makes sense ton concentrate now on how to sell what we have
>    agreed upon to the web content people.
>
>    <fsasaki>
>    [14]https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/mlw-lt-charter-2012-up
>    date/
>
>      [14] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/mlw-lt-charter-2012-update/
>
>    Felix: One admin detail: to make this work, we will need a
>    review of the charter. Everyone representing an organization,
>    please fill in this form or get your rep to fill it in.
>
>    David: I think this is important and that we took the time is
>    good. But let's keep the discussion short.
>
> call for consensus on special requirements
>
>    david: comments that Yves made were made before
>    ... the category as specified now contains two to three
>    different categories
>    ... I think the contents of this category, at least the
>    display-size should be taken further
>    ... is there anybody who wants to take this further?
>
>    pedro: you mean to split this into several ones?
>
>    felix: propose that micha takes an action item to split this
>    into several ones
>
>    micha: sure
>
>    <scribe> ACTION: michael to split special requirements into
>    several data categories [recorded in
>    [15]http://www.w3.org/2012/08/02-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action01]
>
>    <trackbot> Created ACTION-189 - Split special requirements into
>    several data categories [on Michael Kruppa - due 2012-08-09].
>
>    micha: it would be just two categories
>
>    <Arle> Apologies for having to drop out. I'll look at the
>    minutes later, but someone came to the door and I can't put
>    them off. I may be able to jump back in later.
>
>    david: display size, storage, band characters
>    ... this should be split I think
>    ... should be quite easiy
>
>    pedro: so summary is: we split special requirements into three:
>    display, storage size, forbidden characters
>
>    david: yes, band characters are the least stable part
>    ... the reg ex thing needs to be resolved
>
>    pedro: the current attributes of storage size and display size
>    are part of one category?
>    ... for me it is fine
>
> Named Entity/Disambiguation
>
>    david: a lot of discussion about this during last weeks call
>    ... action item for tadej to implement this, tadej, what's your
>    progress?
>
>    tadej: I went through the minutes
>    ... mostly things were around good terminology to fit all
>    communities
>    ... right now I have a version that integrates all suggestions
>    ... I still work on the one with different variants of pointer,
>    refpointer etc.
>    ... I will send a new version of the draft, this time on google
>    docs
>
>    david: I thought it should be final?
>
>    tadej: thought it would be necessary
>    ... I have enough information from everyone
>
>    felix: no need to have too many call for consensus for a data
>    category, if it is ready, we will put it into the draft
>
>    david: have a task force or just post it?
>
>    tadej: from my perspective I think this is ready
>    ... just want to have another review from the people on the
>    call
>
>    felix: that's fine
>
>    pedro: for this data category
>    ... we should involve piek vossen, he can give great input on
>    this
>
>    felix: agree, if we send this to the list, piek hopefully can
>    join the discussion
>
> mtConfidence
>
>    david: had good discussion about mtConfidence
>    ... mtEngine self evaluation
>    ... Chris Wendt said that this would serve their purpose
>
>    declan: understand the difficiulties ms is mentioning in the
>    mail
>    ... the parts MS was talking about could be hard to implement
>    ... would propose to jsut implement mtConfidence score
>    ... the automatic metrix are hard and may not be that useful
>    across the automatic workflow
>
>    david: in the august list, I responded to jan nelson
>    ... declan and chris wendt made similar points
>    ... other pointers are needed to produce the score, but not
>    needed for a content attribute
>    ... agree it would be messy to try to implement this with
>    reference implementations
>    ... agree with Declan and Chris that self evaluation order and
>    confidence would be more useful and stable
>    ... happy to drive only mtConfidence
>    ... human evaluation does not suffer from this
>    ... many people do this
>    ... not error checking, but people using simple scale
>    ... this evaluation gets more importance
>    ... would be good to be able to encode it
>
>    felix: I hope that we can postpone this discussion since we
>    have too much stuff to do, we should focus on that
>
>    pedro: for post editing you need a lot of other information
>    ... score itself is not enough
>
>    david: think post editing is out of scope
>    ... it would be messy if we try to map score and post editing
>    ... not sure if this is what you meant
>    ... I'm happy to continue just with mtConfidence
>    ... this needs to move forward on the ML
>
>    <scribe> ACTION: dfilip to draft a section about mtConfidence,
>    based on the discussion [recorded in
>    [16]http://www.w3.org/2012/08/02-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action04]
>
>    <trackbot> Created ACTION-190 - Draft a section about
>    mtConfidence, based on the discussion [on David Filip - due
>    2012-08-09].
>
> issue-29 progress
>
>    david: maxime is working on this
>    ... prominent in the light of recent changes
>
>    <tadej> scribe: tadej
>
>    fsasaki: The current status is that output to RDF is already
>    done and independent of RDFa or Microdata, we are at the point
>    of needing a chapter for the standard and defining the RDF
>    ontology.
>
>    <fsasaki> rdf representation here
>    [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
>    lt/2012Jul/0065.html and
>    [18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
>    lt/2012Jul/att-0065/nodelist-rdfxml.xml
>
>      [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Jul/0065.html
>      [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Jul/att-0065/nodelist-rdfxml.xml
>
> issue-34 (quality)
>
>    <fsasaki> phil: we are very close to being able to issue our
>    call
>
>    <fsasaki> .. had various naming and implementation details, we
>    are very close
>
>    <fsasaki> david: I discussed with arle that he would submit a
>    speaking proposal for seattle
>
>    <fsasaki> .. what's the time line for closing?
>
>    <fsasaki> phil: need to check with Arle
>
>    <fsasaki> david: on track for closing this within august
>
> house keeping
>
>    <fsasaki> see overdue actions at
>    [19]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/a
>    ctions/overdue
>
>      [19] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/overdue
>
>    <fsasaki> action-158 - jirka, will do editorial work next week
>
>    <fsasaki> jirka: might make sense that yves edits this
>
>    <fsasaki> action-164 discussed during the call today
>
>    <fsasaki> felix: see editing plans for HTML5 and query language
>    attr. here
>    [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
>    lt/2012Aug/0062.html
>
>      [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Aug/0062.html
>
>    <fsasaki>
>    [21]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Pra
>    gueSep2012#Objectives
>
>      [21] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/PragueSep2012#Objectives
>
>    <fsasaki> felix: this is just a start about the prague f2f,
>    feel free to comment
>
>    <fsasaki> david: short update on my action item - seattle event
>
>    <fsasaki> action-34
>
>    <fsasaki> david: we extended call for papers
>
>    <fsasaki> .. felix and arle, can you promote the event on the
>    social media setup
>
>    <fsasaki> ACTION: felix to promote seattle event on mlw setup
>    [recorded in
>    [22]http://www.w3.org/2012/08/02-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action05]
>
>    <trackbot> Created ACTION-191 - Promote seattle event on mlw
>    setup [on Felix Sasaki - due 2012-08-09].
>
>    <fsasaki> david: we have a strong pc
>
>    <fsasaki> david: lot's of interesting submissions on the way
>
>    <fsasaki> david: on good track with this event
>
> aob
>
>    <fsasaki> pedro: felix asked me to present in prague
>    implementation, things of what we use for our showcase,
>    progress indicator and readyness
>
>    <fsasaki> felix: everything you have available, if possible
>    just show us on the list
>
>    <fsasaki>
>    [23]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Bes
>    t_Practices
>
>      [23] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Best_Practices
>
>    <fsasaki> pedro: agree to focus on this next year
>
>    <fsasaki> david: thanks, think we did good progress today,
>    thanks all for your hard work
>
>    <fsasaki> bye everybody
>
> Summary of Action Items
>
>    [NEW] ACTION: dfilip to draft a section about mtConfidence,
>    based on the discussion [recorded in
>    [24]http://www.w3.org/2012/08/02-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action04]
>    [NEW] ACTION: felix to promote seattle event on mlw setup
>    [recorded in
>    [25]http://www.w3.org/2012/08/02-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action05]
>    [NEW] ACTION: michael to split special requirements into
>    several data categories [recorded in
>    [26]http://www.w3.org/2012/08/02-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action01]
>
>    [End of minutes]
>      __________________________________________________________
>
>
>     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [27]scribe.perl version
>     1.136 ([28]CVS log)
>     $Date: 2012/08/02 15:10:14 $
>
>      [27] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
>      [28] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 2 August 2012 15:22:00 UTC