W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > August 2012

RE: Call for consensus - Localization Quality Précis (related to [ISSUE-34])

From: Des Oates <doates@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 14:16:48 +0100
To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>, "public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7B8D77012FE36343856B6DE17A307DD284C0CB59A1@eurmbx01.eur.adobe.com>
Hi Yves

I have one question on this. The locQualityPrecisProfileRef/ locQualityPrecisProfileRefPointer  are optional attributes. This implies that the default range [0-100] specified for locQualityPrecisScore/locQualityPrecisScorePointer has meaning to all systems that will use or consume the data category. I don't know that this will be true for all cases, but I think for most cases this will be fine.

The question I have is this: Can I provide my own scoring range if I supply my own locQualityPrecisProfileRef?  I think it is natural that I should be able to do so. I.e. I should not be constrained by the default scoring range if I provide a valid scoring schema in my own locQualityProfile that I provide.

The rationale for this is as follows: I can see us using this data category in community translation based workflows, where translations can be 'quality scored' by the user community as both positive and negative.  So I would want to be able to put negative scores in this field as well as positive scores. And there would be no upper or lower limit on this.

In summary, I don't think it makes sense to constrain the values of locQualityPreciseScore* if a user provides a locQualityPrecisProfile* that can provide semantic meaning to the score values that lie outside the [0-100] range.


-----Original Message-----
From: Yves Savourel [mailto:ysavourel@enlaso.com] 
Sent: 23 August 2012 13:12
To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Subject: Call for consensus - Localization Quality Précis (related to [ISSUE-34])

Hi everyone,

This is the call for consensus for the "Localization Quality Précis" data category.

The latest text, based on Phil and Dave's feedback, is here:

I should be able to have it in the specification by Monday.

One question for English experts: should I use "Précis" or "Precis".


Received on Thursday, 23 August 2012 13:17:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:31:51 UTC