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

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.

Thanks
Des


-----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:
http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/LocQuality#Localization_Quality_Precis


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

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

Cheers,
-yves