- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 22:07:59 +0100
- To: "public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <50BD14AF.4080801@w3.org>
... are at http://www.w3.org/2012/12/03-mlw-lt-minutes.html
and below as text. For some cases I was too fast in putting in topic
lines, so I re-arranged some bits. Please have a look.
Best,
Felix
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
MLW-LT WG
03 Dec 2012
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Dec/0016.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2012/12/03-mlw-lt-irc
Attendees
Present
felix, arle, dave, Yves, Ankit, Arle, shaunm, tadej,
DomJones, mdelolmo, leroy, dF, pnietoca, Des, philr,
Pedro, chriLi
Regrets
naoto
Chair
felix
Scribe
Arle, fsasaki
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]role call
2. [6]Issues Check
3. [7]Terminology
4. [8]Disambiguation
5. [9]Provenance
6. [10]Localization Quality Rating
7. [11]Localization Quality Issue
8. [12]toolsRef change
9. [13]Vote for last call publication
10. [14]Next steps
11. [15]Upcoming calls and AOB
12. [16]EC issues
* [17]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
role call
<fsasaki> waiting for attendees ...
Issues Check
<Serge> test typing
<DomJones> +1 on short ;)
<fsasaki>
[18]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/i
ssues/open
[18] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/open
Terminology
Felix: We can publish a feature-complete draft without
addressing the edtiorial bits in section 1.
<fsasaki>
[19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
lt/2012Nov/0263.html
[19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Nov/0263.html
Felix: We want to make people aware of this. We discussed not
using TermConfidence global. Marcis is OK with this change. Any
comments?
Felix: No comments. Moving on.
Disambiguation
<fsasaki>
[20]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/i
ts20/its20.html#disambiguation-global
[20] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#disambiguation-global
Felix: We had various actions to finalize disambiguation. Main
change is that now global attributes are parallel to local
attributes. Thanks to Tadej for providing that.
<fsasaki>
[21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
lt/2012Dec/0014.html
[21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Dec/0014.html
Felix: One additional topic emerged on the weekend: casing of
granularity attribute.
<fsasaki>
[22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
lt/2012Dec/0023.html
[22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Dec/0023.html
Felix: Mail thread shows that it might be more convenient to
use lower-case values.
<fsasaki> "lexicalConcept > lexical-concept"
Felix: Changes to the draft are posted by Felix.
<fsasaki> ontologyConcept >ontology-concept
Felix: This saves the problem of relating HTML5 and XML
versions.
... Felix: Will make this change prior to making the final
call. Then we can see this.
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to update casing in disambiguation.
[recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2012/12/03-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-355 - Update casing in
disambiguation. [on Felix Sasaki - due 2012-12-10].
Provenance
<fsasaki>
[24]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/i
ts20/its20.html#provenance-global
[24] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#provenance-global
Felix: People need to be aware of latest changes. See URL.
<fsasaki>
[25]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/i
ts20/its20.html#EX-provenance-local-1
[25] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#EX-provenance-local-1
<fsasaki>
[26]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/i
ts20/examples/xml/EX-provenance-local-1.xml
[26] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/examples/xml/EX-provenance-local-1.xml
Felix: We added the provRef.
Localization Quality Rating
<fsasaki>
[27]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/i
ts20/its20.html#lqrating-implementation
[27] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#lqrating-implementation
Felix: We had the question of whether the value should be 0 to
1 or 0 to 100. The draft now has 0 to 100.
Phil: Given that it is a decimal number I don't mind. I thought
we were going 0 to 1, but some people (Des?) felt that 0 to 100
is more intuitive. But as long as it is decimal it doesn't
really matter.
Des: This conversation was a long time ago. 0 to 100 is good
because it maps to percentages, but I don't care a lot either
way.
Felix: If we want to move forward and both solutions work, use
0 to 100 so we don't need to change things in the spec and slow
things down.
Serge: Industry uses 1 to 10 or 1 5to 5. But anything works
here.
Localization Quality Issue
<fsasaki>
[28]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
lt/2012Nov/0266.html
[28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Nov/0266.html
<fsasaki>
[29]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/i
ts20/its20.html#lqissue-typevalues
[29] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#lqissue-typevalues
Felix: Arle made some clarifications in the type definition.
See the draft.
<fsasaki> scribe: fsasaki
arle: three changes there made
... two were strictly explanatory, one was normative
... there was a clarification needed related to terminology
... daniel as an implementor asked about that
... we clarified that in the "lqissue type" table
... the 2nd change was about white space
... daniel pointed out that this type should relate to any type
of white space issue
... that is in general, not only related to translation
... third change:
... daniel asked if register would apply to something like
spelling, e.g. british vs. american
... I made a clarification that these would go under local
violation
<scribe> scribe: arle
toolsRef change
Felix: This is the last one. Summary is that there was a thread
about the usage of the ToolRef mechanism and its
differentiation from provenance. In this thread it became clear
that we needed to clarify the relation.
<fsasaki>
[30]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Fil
e:Its20-annotation-edits.docx
[30] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/File:Its20-annotation-edits.docx
Felix: I created an annotated document with the draft.
(Felix does screen sharing to show the annotation)
Pablo: I reviewed it and it looks fine.
<fsasaki> "annotatorsRef"
Felix: We renamed toolsRef to annotatorsRef.
... This clarifies that it relates to annotations.
... We added explanatory text. It separates three different
pieces of tool-related information.
Dave: I read it and it seems clear. One minor note: "should
always" sounds mandatory, but maybe it doesn't matter as it is
in a note. Perhaps say "should" instead of "should always."
<chriLi> Do we have a definition for "annotation"?
Dave: I think it is a good change.
Felix: We don't have a formal definition here.
... Christian, do you want a different term? This was meant as
a note.
Christian: It's not about the term itself. It's fine. More it
is that if we are talking about annotations and have three
kinds of processes, we need to be clear what we mean by
"annotation."
... Wouldn't modification of textual content count as
annotation?
... There are two questions: (1) should we be very explicit
about what we mean by "annotation"? (2) Should that definition
go in this note or elsewhere?
Felix: If we would add new normative text to explain the note,
I would worry. I see the point but I would rather change the
note and not add a normative definition.
Christian: I was thinking only of the non-normative
explanation.
Felix: Would you like an action to phrase such a definition
(wherever we put it)? I agree it would help.
... We don't use the term "annotation" outside of this.
Christian: I'm not sure I could work on it under the current
time line.
Felix: Since it is non-normative, it would not influence our
timeline. We could still go to last call. Your time line would
be whenever we progress the document. There are many parts that
need clarification (especially in sections 1 and 2).
Christian: Then I could do it.
<scribe> ACTION: Christian to draft non-normative definition of
"annotation" [recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2012/12/03-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-356 - Draft non-normative definition
of "annotation" [on Christian Lieske - due 2012-12-10].
Dave: Could we refer to Annex H to deal with this issue?
<fsasaki> "create ITS annotations;" > "create ITS annotations,
see the [link to list of elements / attributes in annex H];"
Felix: That would be one way. Is what I typed what you mean?
Dave: Yes.
Felix: I think some clarification is needed, but I think that
works.
... Chrstian, is 10.December good?
Christian: More time would be good.
<fsasaki> action-356: time line will be updated
<trackbot> ACTION-356 Draft non-normative definition of
"annotation" notes added
Felix: Let us know when you can do it.
Vote for last call publication
Felix: Last call means that we (WG) think the draft is feature
complete and are looking for outside feedback until at least 10
January.
<fsasaki>
[32]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/a
ctions/open?sort=due
[32] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/open?sort=due
Felix: We did all actions need for publication.
<chriLi> +queue
<chriLi> queue
Felix: Before publication we need to make the change in
disambiguation case and AnnotatorsRef.
<fsasaki>
[33]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/i
ts20/TR-version/#status
[33] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/TR-version/#status
Christian: Can you briefly explain the procedure around
publication/last call for comments? What does it mean? Where do
comments go?
<fsasaki> "The normative sections of this document (from
Section 3: Notation and Terminology to Section 8: Description
of Data Categories and Appendix A: References to Appendix D:
Schemas for ITS) are stable. The other, non-normative sections
contain only explanatory material and will be updated in a
later working draft. Hence, the Working Group especially
encourages feedback on the normative...
<fsasaki> ...sections. The goal is to move out of last call
without any substantive changes to these sections."
Felix: That will help those are new. See the link I supplied.
That link goes to the status. See the paragraph I pasted as
well.
<fsasaki> "To give feedback send your comments to
public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org. Use "Comment on ITS
2.0 specification WD" in the subject line of your email. The
archives for this list are publicly available. See also issues
discussed within the Working Group and the list of changes
since the previous publication."
<fsasaki> "The Last Call period ends 10 January 2013."
Felix: We will gather comments sent to that list until 10
January. Then the WG has to come back to all commenters to make
sure that they are satisfied with our response.
... This is something not new to some of us, but let me show
what we will work with.
<fsasaki>
[34]http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/lc-replies.ht
ml
[34] http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/lc-replies.html
Felix: We create a "disposition of comments." For each comment
(even spelling mistake) and non-normative clarification we
supply what the comment was, when it was received, etc. + what
change (if any) we made. We need to respond to these to move to
the next stage if we are to say that the public considers it
complete.
... If there are normative changes, we would have to go back to
last call. So that is why we don't want to have any delay.
Christian: Thanks for the review.
Dave: What happens if the reviewer isn't satisfied?
<fsasaki> "formal objection"
Felix: We can go back and forth, but if the reviewer isn't
satisfied he can file a "formal objection" to moving forward.
If nothing helps, the reviewer has to have a call with the
co-chairs and the director (Tim Berners-Lee or designee). This
rarely happens.
... They do happen, but outside of HTML5 it is rare.
Jirka: When do you need to be done? I'd like to put more
documentation in the schema (not a normative change).
Felix: I can send it for publication, but I can tell the
manager that there are still a few unstable files until
Wednesday.
Jirka: That would be OK with me. I have put schema in the
appendix. It is linked like examples.
Felix: I think that is OK. If the webmaster accepts the files
it should be fine.
Jirka: It's not super important, but nice to have, and I can
work on it tomorrow.
Felix: I can send the draft today, but I can tell the webmaster
that we need to change certain parts that are auto-generated.
We would know by today where we are on this.
Christian: On disposition of comments, is there a timing
related to that?
Felix: Only related to our charter.
<fsasaki> [35]http://www.w3.org/2012/09/mlw-lt-charter.html
[35] http://www.w3.org/2012/09/mlw-lt-charter.html
Felix: Our candidate recommendation phase is that we are
supposed to be out of last call in March.
... If we have comments by 10 January, we have 2 months 3 weeks
to get back and get positive answers.
... For ITS 1.0 we had 60 comments. It took a lot of effort.
... Our timeline supplies the pressure.
... Are you happy with publishing it with the explanations
concerning the state and next steps?
... Is everyone OK with it?
Jirka: Did you discuss the issue of case sensitivity?
Felix: Yes. We said we would move from camel case to lc +
hyphen.
<fsasaki>
[36]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/a
ctions/355
[36] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/355
<fsasaki> "lexicalConcept > lexical-concept"
<fsasaki> "ontologyConcept > ontology-concept"
Jirka: Thanks. That clarifies it.
Felix: I will make these schema changes.
... Who wants it to be published?
Various: We do.
<dF> +1
<Yves_> +1
<dF> :-)
Felix: Silence is agreement, but positive votes are good too.
... I am happy that we have a feature-complete set for ITS 2.0.
<Pedro> x1 :-)
<dF> I need to run, guys.. Thanks everyone for your good work!
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to prepare last call publication.
[recorded in
[37]http://www.w3.org/2012/12/03-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-357 - Prepare last call publication.
[on Felix Sasaki - due 2012-12-10].
<chriLi> +q
<Pedro> +q
Dom: Reminder about testing-suite webinar tomorrow.
Christian: About the last call. Of course I have full
confidence in your procedural knowledge. Do we need to ask for
abstains or objections?
Felix: Normally it is enough to record an affirmative vote.
Christian: I abstain.
<philr> I vote to publish.
Next steps
Pedro: What about the deadlines Arle mentioned?
Felix: Let's go through next steps first.
<fsasaki>
[38]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
lt/2012Dec/0025.html
[38] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Dec/0025.html
Felix: We need feedback from outside.
... Currently the outside comment list is empty. Use the email
draft I posted to get reviewers.
... Can you ask for individuals to provide feedback?
... Type your name if you can ask people individually.
Arle
<chriLi> +q
<daveL> I can ask people at WeLocalise, Alchemy and Symantec
Christian: Is there a way to avoid us all asking the same
people for review?
Arle: I will ask IBM, Lionbridge, SDL.
<Yves_> I should be able to ask comments to a few Localization
tools developers.
<Pedro> Pedro, I can ask also a couple of people
<chriLi> +q
<shaunm> + q
<shaunm> +q
<fsasaki> scribe: Arle_
<philr> I'll need to discuss who I talk to with my Business
Development Managers
Felix: People are to submit names to Arle, Felix, Nieves by
Wednesday. They will respond on overlap by Friday.
Christian: [Arle missed the question]
<fsasaki>
[39]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2012OctDec/0070
.html
[39] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2012OctDec/0070.html
Felix: We will send a notification to other chairs. We also
have a requirement to send an announcement to the XLIFF TC
because our charter specifies that.
Shaun: What people would be appropriate to invite?
<Clemens> sorry, I've to go to another meeting
Felix: The current draft is not stable for explanatory
sections, so it doesn't make sense to invite high-level
business people. We need people who can provide technical
details.
... People in localization, LT, etc. can provide feedback.
... Anyone who might apply ITS 2.0 in a technical sense.
Shaun: I talk to two open-source localization tool developing
groups. They are not implementers now, but may be.
Felix: It makes sense to me. Contact those who might implement
and who would need to know technical details.
... I focused on technical aspects. We need to make sure it is
easy to integrate ITS.
... In their tools
... I will nudge some of your to get more people for comments.
... One issue: we need a native-speaker check on the document.
Upcoming calls and AOB
Felix: Although we are in last call, I propose that we continue
calls on 10 December at least.
... We can discuss outreach and EC issues.
Arle: We might talk to Serge about Localization Professionals.
Serge: It would go to 18,000 people on LinkedIn.
... About 45% are client-side, 30% LSP. So you need to be
particularly clear about what you want.
<tadej> ./me I need to leave now, best regarrds
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to work on Localization Professionals
announcement draft [recorded in
[40]http://www.w3.org/2012/12/03-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-358 - Work on Localization
Professionals announcement draft [on Felix Sasaki - due
2012-12-10].
<fsasaki> ACTION: felix to prepare localization professionals
linked in mail draft [recorded in
[41]http://www.w3.org/2012/12/03-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-359 - Prepare localization
professionals linked in mail draft [on Felix Sasaki - due
2012-12-10].
EC issues
Pedro: Regarding the deadlines, there are three things. (1) Is
there a difference between those that are due already versus
those that are ongoing?
... (2) For ongoing things we can send something by the 10th.
... (3) For tasks that involve other task leaders, we need help
from them to prepare this.
Felix: Clarification. We know about the Month 12 report. The
idea is not that Arle writes it, but rather that it is a
template. We need it by the 10th for the report. But note that
this it not a statement about a final outcome or to provide all
technical details.
... We really need a few paragraphs about the current state.
This will be public. Please expect there to be public readers.
... Two aspects: (1) reporting; (2) something easy to
understand. Perhaps you can reuse some use-case text from
Prague meeting.
... Some people didn't write anything yet who may not have
their own implementation, but we need information on
everything.
<fsasaki> scribe: fsasaki
arle: if there is something this is not relevant yet
... you can ommit that
... the report is just to re-assure that things are going as we
intend
pedro: mail arle sent about the action is not only about work
packages leaders
... but for all task leaders, and the contributors
yves: what should the contributors do
... send something individually, or to whom?
arle: I assigned the actions to the task leaders
... so make that clear with your task leader
[42]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Del
iverables
[42] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Deliverables
[43]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/WP3
[43] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/WP3
www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/WP5
<Arle_> Felix: It you look at out deliverables sections, some
task leaders will need help. I encourage, especially for
Cocomore, don't wait to ask for information. Please send
information on to the task leaders.
<Arle_> .. Please be proactive.
<Arle_> Clemens: Thanks. I'll send an email to remind people.
<Arle_> Dave: I've been through the process recently, but the
Commission had page-length restrictions.
<Arle_> Arle: I believe it isn't super particular.
<Arle_> ACTION: Felix to confirm page restrictions in report
with Kimmo. [recorded in
[44]http://www.w3.org/2012/12/03-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-360 - Confirm page restrictions in
report with Kimmo. [on Felix Sasaki - due 2012-12-10].
<Arle_> Dave: Do we need to provide finance updates/cost claims
or does that need to wait until after the end of the year?
<Arle_> ACTION: Felix to confirm dates for financial updates
[recorded in
[45]http://www.w3.org/2012/12/03-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-361 - Confirm dates for financial
updates [on Felix Sasaki - due 2012-12-10].
[46]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Del
iverables
[46] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Deliverables
<Arle_> Pedro: Can we have more time than Dec. 10?
[47]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Use
_cases_-_high_level_summary
[47] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Use_cases_-_high_level_summary
<Arle_> Felix: Yes, the deadline is short. The goal is to get
the report done before Christmas. But the good news is that we
don't need super detailed information. That link has probably
enough information. We might be able to repurpose that already.
A few more days would be OK.
<Arle_> .. We don't need a lot of material, but rather soon.
Could we say 12th or 13th for you?
<Arle_> Pedro: For me it is fine, but it depends on the speed
of the answers.
<Arle_> Arle: I asked for a best-case level of detail.
<Arle_> Pedro: I will ask for two paragraphs from everyone.
<Arle_> Felix: Who are you waiting for answers from?
<Arle_> Pedro: Declan, Daniel, Phil. VistaTEC is the one I
don't know about and can't comment on.
felix: I'll take care of vistaTec
<Arle_> ACTION: Felix to clarify VistTEC status for annual
report. [recorded in
[48]http://www.w3.org/2012/12/03-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-362 - Clarify VistTEC status for
annual report. [on Felix Sasaki - due 2012-12-10].
<Arle_> Pedro: Clarify for action 3.2
<Arle_> .. I will take care of Lucy and DCU this week.
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Christian to draft non-normative definition of
"annotation" [recorded in
[49]http://www.w3.org/2012/12/03-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Felix to clarify VistTEC status for annual
report. [recorded in
[50]http://www.w3.org/2012/12/03-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action08]
[NEW] ACTION: Felix to confirm dates for financial updates
[recorded in
[51]http://www.w3.org/2012/12/03-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: Felix to confirm page restrictions in report with
Kimmo. [recorded in
[52]http://www.w3.org/2012/12/03-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: Felix to prepare last call publication. [recorded
in
[53]http://www.w3.org/2012/12/03-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: felix to prepare localization professionals
linked in mail draft [recorded in
[54]http://www.w3.org/2012/12/03-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: Felix to update casing in disambiguation.
[recorded in
[55]http://www.w3.org/2012/12/03-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Felix to work on Localization Professionals
announcement draft [recorded in
[56]http://www.w3.org/2012/12/03-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action04]
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [57]scribe.perl version
1.137 ([58]CVS log)
$Date: 2012-12-03 21:06:12 $
[57] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[58] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 3 December 2012 21:08:30 UTC