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

Re: [all] readiness and translation process parameters

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 14:59:22 +0200
Message-ID: <CAL58czrxB6-GDZ+3ymL=wJwM70s9WfrkRSxAN3D+kJswi0VM6A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arle Lommel <arle.lommel@dfki.de>
Cc: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>, public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
2012/7/5 Arle Lommel <arle.lommel@dfki.de>

> Hi Dave,
>
> We have discussed specifying recommended values (via Linport), and we may
> yet do so, but there is no specific timeframe for this.
>
> What we keep running into (both in Linport and ISO) with this task, as
> with "domain" in our project, is that there is no single ontology for the
> permissible values. While some of the items (like source language) have
> obvious, enumeratable values (BCP47 in this case)
>

Actually this is not true: BCP 47 takes a generate approach for language
tags - there is a formal grammar for language tags
http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47#section-2.1
which can generate arbitrary language tags; only the subtags are taken from
this registry
http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry/
which is also updated from time to time via proposals for new subtags. And,
there is an extension mechanism defined at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47#section-3.7

Sorry for nitpicking here, but you because of the above, you cannot
enumerate BCP47.


> , overall we do not believe we can enumerate the values.
>

I agree with this - and that's we reason I think this data category will
have no interoperable implementations. Dave, I can already tell you, with
this approach I would disagree with a "call for consensus". I understand
the wish to have this feature e.g. from Pedro, but my proposal would be
different:

- Pedro's team  teams up VistaTEC or other LSPs
- Not our TC, but the LSPs tell us what their lowest bar for
interoperability is here.


>
> I'm not sure we can specify interoperability tests at this point.
>

Indeed - for me another reason to object against this moving forward.


> What we could do is specify that user agents present the values in an
> appropriate form. For machine-processible results we will have to wait (and
> I'm convinced that there will only be limited interoperability possible at
> best).
>
> I am not sure we will get the kind of LSP feedback we would like, but I
> can try to make some inquiries via Linport and GALA. It may take a while to
> get much of a response, however.
>

That's another reason to not to try to "push this feature into ITS 2.0".


>
> I've gone ahead and created an action for this:
> https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/152
>
> I recognize that Felix won't want us to spend a lot of time on this for
> the moment, but I think this action will help us gauge interest in this
> topic in general and decide whether to invest more time for ITS 2.0 or to
> simply leave it for Linport. (I'm agnostic on this question at the moment.)
>


If Linport is already working on this, why doing it in ITS 2.0? The same
holds for specialRequirements IMO.

Best,

Felix


>
> Hope that helps,
>
> Arle
>
> On Jul 5, 2012, at 13:01 , Dave Lewis wrote:
>
>  Hi Arle,
>
> Thanks for that summary - the http://ttt.org/specs/ site is very helpful.
>
> However, you confirm my impression from this that OSI TS/11669 isn't
> defining permissable values for these, which limits the degree we can
> specify interoperability tests against these values.
>
> Are there plans for ISO to populate these values at some time, or are
> there any industry groups or plans at LINPORT to publish any best practice
> values for these attributes?
>
> Again it would be good to hear from the LSPs and clients on their interest
> in this spec so we can reach a decision on what level we can refer to these
> in either ITS2.0 or use them in test suites?
>
> cheers,
> dave
>
> On 04/07/2012 13:43, Arle Lommel wrote:
>
> Hi Dave,
>
>  The translation parameters are defined in ISO TS/11669, which was just
> published as an ISO technical specification. So those parameters are
> normative (at least if they apply to a task). Implementation is still a bit
> thin since the Technical Specification was only published a few weeks ago.
> However, they are the parameters that go into Linport, so there is
> increasing traction via Linport.
>
>  The fact that the parameter descriptions were published by ISO as part
> of TS/11669 (which has strict copyright restrictions and is sold), access
> would be a problem. But in this case Alan Melby negotiated an exception to
> general ISO copyright policy to allow the parameters *only* (not the rest
> of the Technical Specification) to be published openly. The URL is:
>
>  http://ttt.org/specs/
>
>  Right now these are not easily retrieved in a usable form (i.e., there
> should be a unique URI that retrieves the details for each parameter and
> nothing else, rather than the HTML page that is there now), but I can
> actually take care of that directly if I know what should be retrieved from
> a URI (e.g., the name, description, etc.) since I have access to the server
> to make these changes. Ideally, however, these would be referred to via
> ISOCat rather than from Alan's server, so I can see about how to add them
> to ISOCat (in which case the issue of access becomes part of the broader
> question of best practice for referring to ISOCat).
>
>  Note that you would still need name-value pairs at some level (although
> you might instead point to a URI with a full set of specifications
> [specifications = parameters + values]). So for the present, the reference
> to the URI would only give you the definition of the category, but not its
> value. So I would envision something more like this:
>
>   <its:rules
>   xmlns:its="http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its" <http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its>  version="2.0">
>  <its:transParam selector="/html/body" *transParamRef="http://www.ex.com/register.txt" transParamValue="formal"/>*
> </its:rules>
>
>  Not sure on that particular syntax, but it should get the idea across.
>
>  Note that ISO TS/11669 also does not define permissible values: Its
> categories were intended for human consumption, so if we want
> machine-processing interoperability, we would sill need a way to point to
> the permissible values in a given scenario. So the problem is only removed
> by a step, but we gain in this scenario in that *we* don't need to
> replicate anything in ISO TS/11669 and we open up whatever power is
> available from TS/11669.
>
>  Best,
>
>  -Arle
>
>  On Jul 4, 2012, at 14:08 , Dave Lewis wrote:
>
> Hi Arle,
> I agree, leaving this to Linport and ISO was the broad intent of that
> transParam proposal - they are the right people to do this.
>
> Further, I agree a dumb pointer to an external doc would be a reasonable
> alternative to name-value pairs - what do the LSP and client people think?
> Is this something people would be interested in implementing?
>
> As with the earlier transParam suggestion, this is soft on conformance,
> but a bit more specific in referring to Linport/ISO to solve this. But like
> the standoff provenance and PROV WG discussion, the maturity of this
> external work is a factor. Could you say a bit more about this normative
> status you mention? Can the documents be made available to the WG?
>
> I guess it would look like
>
> <its:rules
>   xmlns:its="http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its" <http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its>  version="2.0">
>  <its:transParam selector="/html/body" transParamRef="*http://www.ex.com/transParam.txt"*/>
> </its:rules>
>
> cheers,
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2012 12:59:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:31:47 UTC