RE: [ISSUE-34] URL for draft of quality categories: correction

Arles, Yves, I also have comment below on this:

A few notes:

-- For locQualityScore, locQualityCode, locQualityComment, and locQualitySeverity, since the default value is unknown why do we need a default value? (which is of a different type than an otherwise valid value)
Maybe there should be no default for those attributes.

Des> I also agree that locQualityScore should not have defaults. In fact I'm not even sure it should not be  normalized, especially to a scalar range. When thinking about potential use cases for this field, I realised that one of our potential use cases for this does not map to a scalar range.  
Des> We have a community portal that allows our user-translator community to rate translations using a simple 'thumbs up/thumbs down' mechanism. The result of this quality metric is either a positive or a negative aggregate number, with 0 being neutral (or unranked)   I don't believe we are alone with adopting such a mechanism for user-driven content, but it's not mappable to this data category as it stands. 

I would suggest this is not normalized because of this, and therefore no default value is meaningful.


Received on Thursday, 9 August 2012 16:04:53 UTC