RE: [ISSUE-34] Localization Quality

Yves

I'm sorry but I really disagree with the renaming of "Localisation Quality 
Profile" to "Localisation Quality Score". To me the word "Score" 
represents a finite classification or measurement that is applied to an 
artifact. The original intention of "Localisation Quality Profile" was, in 
addition to document-level summary/aggregated information, to describe the 
characteristics of the quality measurement system being employed. Thus 
even if the quality system is not well-known, as LISA QA would be, it 
could be described in detail. Though the format of this profile is out of 
scope for this project, I think it would help with interoperability. 
Though the "Profile" allows for assigning an overall document score, to 
me, this is of lesser importance than the model characteristics as the 
overall score can always be derived from the individual quality scores.

I can live with Severity being 0-100 for the benefit of interoperability 
provided that decimal values (55.25, 28.357) can be used.

Phil.





From:   Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
To:     <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>, 
Date:   20/08/2012 15:31
Subject:        RE: [ISSUE-34] Localization Quality



Hi all,

The latest try for the quality-related data categories is here:
http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/LocQuality

Below is a summary of the main changes and some notes/questions:


--- Two data categories:

As we've discussed, I've split the information into two data categories: 
Localization Quality and Localization Quality Score.

I've renamed 'Localization Quality Profile' to 'Localization Quality 
Score' because it seems that's what the second data category provides: a 
way to score a document.

I've renamed 'Localization Quality Issue' to 'Localization Quality' 
because the attributes names were consistent that way. But I suppose we 
could go the other way and rename the attributes instead.

What happened to the profile? Both data categories offer an attribute that 
point to it. It is a bit redundant but it allows to truly separate scoring 
a document from marking up issues.


--- Just 4 pieces of information:

The 'Localization Quality' data category carries four pieces of 
information: the type, the comment, the severity and the reference to the 
profile. I've dropped all the others--not quite stable--information. It 
seems we have support to implement those, and we should probably get those 
done before re-visiting possible additions.

By dropping the tool-specific code, we can also simplify greatly the 
profile reference: No need for QNames anymore. My solution for the 
tool-specific code is to use data- in HTML or a custom namespace in XML.


--- Required attributes

I'm still not exactly sure how to organize the attributes for the global 
rules.
For example, should we be able to mix pointers and values for the 
different information?
Also, technically, one could have a rule with just 
locQualityType='uncategorized', which wouldn't be very useful. So we may 
need additional constraints.


--- Severity

It seems the value for the severity information is the only one that is a 
bit controversial. I think we can map anything to 0-100, but that's just 
my opinion: others disagree. We should be able to come up with a solution 
for this. I think this is an important information that's worth the time.


--- Standoff local markup

As discussed, there is now a standoff way to provide local markup. We just 
use an attribute that points to another place where we can have a list of 
issues. We provide the elements for XML, and use special <span> in HTML.

The important part here is that, within this context, the scope of the 
attributes is different: it pertains to the content of the element where 
the reference is called rather than the content of the element where the 
attributes are defined.


--- Pointers and HTML

I wonder if the pointers mechanism really make sense in HTML (in general, 
not just for localization quality): Since HTML is a specific format we 
shouldn't have to provide a mechanism to map constructs that are 
equivalent to our its-... attributes.


Cheers,
-ys





************************************************************
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.

www.vistatec.com
************************************************************