RE: [Issue-41][Action-190] Draft a section about mtConfidence, based on the discussion

> I am not sure what the defaults should be in order to cut
> this. If multiple mtProducers and/or mtEngines default to the 
> same values, this category collapses as the confidence scores 
> are NOT comparable among producers/engines..

"If multiple..." then multiple mtProducers and mtEngines should define their values.
But when there is a single set of translation there is not necessarily a need for more info than the score.

> It [the score] is worth nothing if you cannot discern among producers and engines.

But it's worth something when you have only one producer or engine. And in that case knowing the producer and engine often doesn't matter.

> The end user who does not understand this MUST NOT be exposed to values
> coming from mixed engines/producers.
> In other words it is OK to DISPLAY SCORE ONLY TO THE END USER 
> if you have ensured up the stream that they DO come from the same 
> producer AND engine.
> Again not sure how to cut this with defaults, as the defaults would 
> collapse filtering.  

Again all this applies only when you have translations for different providers/engines for the same text. That only one part of the scenarios.

In any case, the bottom line is that making a local attribute presence required or not based on whether a global one is present or not is not easily implementable. It could be defined in an linked rule file for example.

What I think you really try to do is make sure a value is define for mtProducer and mtEngine. I don't agree that one is always need, but that is a different topic (as discussed above). But if we decide one is needed, we can just state that one must be define. It doesn't make sense to me to try to define how or where it should be defined: the inheritance takes care of that.


Received on Thursday, 9 August 2012 12:57:00 UTC