- From: Dr. David Filip <David.Filip@ul.ie>
- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:25:44 +0100
- To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CANw5LKkdjB4TbathQU7MTKZmgDH+14ASvUWMA0Dg6ABBrtdC=w@mail.gmail.com>
All, please find attached the next draft. I tried to resolve most of the editorial comments Yves and others had re the first draft. I now refer to general inheritance and override behavior. I consolidated to <0;1> giving a hint to implementers that they can interpret this as a percentage etc.. After a brief discussion with Dave on provenance and translationAgent, we agreed that covering mtConfidence needs in translationAgent would make the translation agent unnecessarily convoluted (this might change if WG decides that ITS needs more complex translation agent reporting and recording). mtConfidence information is extremely perishable and the information needed for identifying an MT engine virtually does not overlap with the translation agent in its present shape. BTW I miss a processing requirements section in the template.. Where should I say that For self-reporting MT confidence of produced MT quality, MT producers MUST use mtConfidence. Any agent replacing or modifying raw MT in a segment (text element) MUST remove or archive all the MT confidence markup. Rgds dF Dr. David Filip ======================= LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS University of Limerick, Ireland telephone: +353-6120-2781 *cellphone: +353-86-0222-158* facsimile: +353-6120-2734 mailto: david.filip@ul.ie
Attachments
- application/msword attachment: mtConfidence.doc
Received on Friday, 31 August 2012 12:26:52 UTC