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

Yves, David,
Apologies coming to this thread a bit late. You've already pointed out 
that the score needs to be mostly local, i.e. per segment as passed to 
an MT service, while the definition of providers/engine would be more 
likely global, i.e. the same engine would be used for most segments in a 
document. We also have distinct use cases where only the score is 
relevant or where the score and the service is needed. So it seems that 
two data categories would suite, one for score and one for identifying 
the engine.

We do however already a way of identifying an MT service that has been 
used on a document or its segments, in the form of translationAgent (see 
call for concensus

I propose therefore that translationAgent used in conjunction with an 
mtConfidence score data category that had just one score attribute would 
therefore cover the different use cases while also supporting the 
existing use cases outlined for translationAgent.

Note translationAgent allows multiple agents to be specified, but 
doesn't concern itself with distinguishing the types of agent, e.g. 
provider/organisation from software/engine, though both are possible. 
The form of the ID or the result of dereferencing it is assumed to 
address this, given the lack of common namign schemes for organsiations 
or engines.

I'd be happy anyway to include the example IDs from mtConfidence engine 
attribute into translationAgent - as these are sensible ideas, and 
something we could address more comprehensively as best practice next year.


On 09/08/2012 13:56, Yves Savourel wrote:
>> 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, 23 August 2012 00:57:04 UTC