Re: [ISSUE 34] preliminary list of top-level error categories

Thanks Felix. See below:

On Jul 31, 2012, at 08:38 , Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi Arle, all,
> 
> Arle, that looks like a great job indeed. A few comments below.
> 
> 2012/7/30 Arle Lommel <arle.lommel@dfki.de>
> 
> It would be very helpful to get this feedback from the people working on the specifications / tools you list below. With Yves, I think we covered CheckMate. Can you take an action to make feedback from the other groups publicly? 

I will try to bring in QA Distiller, SDL and XLIFF:Doc. As far as I know, those are the only ones besides CheckMate that might be actively maintained. The LISA QA Model is in limbo and SAE J2450 is done. The ISO draft was officially declared dead in Madrid, but I included it for reference. The ATA one is still very much alive, but serves a different purpose. So I will try to reach out to those three to see what they have to say.

> 
> The analysis covers a lot of tools and specifications. Esp. for readers from the non localization area, it would be helpful to have examples how to represent output of these tools in ITS markup. I guess you have written that up anyway as part of your detailed analysis.

Actually, not yet, since we don't have the ITS markup nailed down entirely yet. But it would not be hard to do so (the hardest part would be mapping the categories to the top-level ones I proposed, but I've already more or less done that after a fashion to come up with the top-level list).

> Do you think you could write a non-normative appendix with that material?

Shouldn't be a problem. I've not got text ready, but I could easily create some guidelines.

> Like with the standoff version of provenance such material might eventually end up in the best practice document, but it would be good to have it available now again for people inside and outside the group to review.

Agreed. I'll see what I can come up with in the short run based on the existing analysis.

-Arle