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

MLW-LT WG call minutes 2012-06-28

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 17:56:05 +0200
Message-ID: <CAL58czq0c9LBwWE2HnBsCDj0i1MoEgBjNxWj_LabiwHrD9TELQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Hi all,

minutes of today's call are at
http://www.w3.org/2012/06/28-mlw-lt-minutes.html and below as text.




      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -

                             MLW-LT WG Call

28 Jun 2012


      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Jun/0159.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2012/06/28-mlw-lt-irc


          dave, felix, dom, maxime, moritz, jirka, shaun, tadej,
          des, pedro



          tadej, fsasaki


     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]agenda
         2. [6]last weeks minutes
         3. [7]action items
         4. [8]General reminder - timeline in july
         5. [9]General reminder: our plan until September
         6. [10]Propose to close ISSUE-3
         7. [11]Propose to close ISSUE-23
         8. [12]ISSUE-1
         9. [13]Propose to close "ISSUE-6: Process State"
        10. [14]RDF serialization
        11. [15]Terminology
     * [16]Summary of Action Items



     [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Jun/0159.html

last weeks minutes

   <fsasaki> [18]http://www.w3.org/2012/06/21-mlw-lt-minutes.html

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2012/06/21-mlw-lt-minutes.html

   <fsasaki> no comments

action items

   <fsasaki> action-135?

   <trackbot> ACTION-135 -- Pedro Luis Díez Orzas to pedro to have
   Giuseppe to flesh out specialRequirements -- due 2012-06-22 --


     [19] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/135

   <fsasaki> action-126?

   <trackbot> ACTION-126 -- David Filip to david to come up with a
   proposal for mtConfidence -- due 2012-07-02 -- OPEN


     [20] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/126

   <fsasaki> action-126 due to next thursday

   <trackbot> ACTION-126 David to come up with a proposal for
   mtConfidence due date now to next thursday

   <fsasaki> action-107?

   <trackbot> ACTION-107 -- Shaun McCance to flesh out locale
   proposal -- due 2012-07-05 -- OPEN


     [21] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/107

   <fsasaki> action-107 next thursday

   <fsasaki> close action-141

   <trackbot> ACTION-141 Table in a staging wiki page to notify
   current state of all data categories in terms of consensus and
   impl comitments. closed

   <fsasaki> action-81?

   <trackbot> ACTION-81 -- David Lewis to consider consolidation
   of author, revisionAgent and translationAgent -- due 2012-05-17
   -- CLOSED


     [22] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/81

   <fsasaki> close action-81

   <trackbot> ACTION-81 consider consolidation of author,
   revisionAgent and translationAgent closed

General reminder - timeline in july


     [23] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Implementation_Commitments

   fsasaki: By mid-July, we should decide on which data categories
   we need.

General reminder: our plan until September

   fsasaki: Implementation commitments to end of July


     [24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Jun/0133.html

   fsasaki: In september, we release an update draft version.
   Everyone should have a description of a prototype.

   daveL: One level is a running prototype, and another level is
   passing the test suites. When do we need to do the latter?

   <fsasaki> [25]http://www.w3.org/2011/12/mlw-lt-charter.html

     [25] http://www.w3.org/2011/12/mlw-lt-charter.html

   fsasaki: The W3C process doesn't require that until next year.
   I would propose that people develop examples along with the

   daveL: Does it make sense to develop some common prototype test

   <fsasaki> [26]http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20120626/

     [26] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20120626/

   daveL: That might kick-start the process with developing tests.
   We might even start with ITS1.0 tests.


     [27] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20120626/#usage-in-html5


     [28] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20120626/examples/html5/EX-translate-html5-global-1.html

   fsasaki: These are HTML5 examples for ITS, we'll put our
   examples in these directories.
   ... These examples are simultaneously in the test files.

   <fsasaki> [29]http://www.w3.org/International/its/tests/

     [29] http://www.w3.org/International/its/tests/

   Maxime: Would the test output files have a repository?


     [30] http://www.w3.org/International/its/tests/test1/Translate1-result.xml

   fsasaki: We need to develop new tests for new data category
   ... Here's an example of a test output
   ... However, we don't want to force implementors to reproduce
   this artificial output literally.
   ... But it should be an illustrative example to help them.

   Des: We're considering creating a default set of 'test
   contents' to demonstrate the implementation, in a complete
   round trip.
   ... it could serve as a standard set of contents that other
   people can work with (and is realistic)

   fsasaki: We developed different kinds of XLIFFs in various
   round-trips and use cases.
   ... We might not end up with a single 'gold standard' of data,
   but more a set of best practice example on what to do with
   ... We can start discussing this in September.
   ... And concentrate on the best practices

   daveL: Would Adobe be a good example of what we're doing?

   Des: Yes, interop of the metadata is the main goal here.
   ... that would be a good way to demonstrate it, as long as it's
   on the agenda.
   ... We might not have exact applicable content, but I can
   participate in constructing some example content.

   <fsasaki> ACTION: felix to think about a round tripping test
   suite data package [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-145 - Think about a round tripping
   test suite data package [on Felix Sasaki - due 2012-07-05].

Propose to close ISSUE-3


     [32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Jun/0157.html

Propose to close ISSUE-23

   <fsasaki> issue-23?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-23 -- Re-draft section 7.6. "Removal,
   Archiving and Re-integration of ITS mark-up" -- open


     [33] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/23


     [34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Jun/0042.html

   fsasaki: No comments around ISSUE-3, let's close it and keep it
   in mind when defining best practices


   fsasaki: Any issues with closing ISSUE-23? .. No, closing it.

Propose to close "ISSUE-6: Process State"

   fsasaki: We can close these by September when we finalize
   these. Any comments against closing it now?

   daveL: Getting data categories closed by September. It would be
   beneficial to be able to demonstrate a concrete pipeline (Des)

   <fsasaki> issue-16?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-16 -- Parameter for rules -- open


     [35] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/16

   <fsasaki> issue-24?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-24 -- Proposal to change ITS term -- open


     [36] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/24

   fsasaki: I propose closing ISSUE-16 and ISSUE-24? Any comments?

   shaunm: (ISSUE-16) Global parameter default may encourage bad
   practices, but we should discuss what would be a way to specify

RDF serialization

   fsasaki: Let's keep ISSUE-16 open until further discussion.


     [37] https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1Y8yLjJpWTJFA-WTvRhTDd6zl6jBOE9P5ckTfCZqUZIk

   <fsasaki> scribe: fsasaki

   maxime: there are two different ways to do the mapping to RDF
   ... first approach would be to compute each element and
   attribute in XML world, then convert that into rdf
   ... option b) would be to transform ITS metadata in RDF, that
   is ITS global rules in RDF
   ... the google docs goes into option b
   ... the dom fragments refer to one fragment in the element / or
   attribute. Pretty similar to what is shown in the artifical
   output at
   ... question is: do we want to do that in RDF or do via option
   ... if there is no use case, we can have standard output in XML

     [38] http://www.w3.org/International/its/tests/test1/Translate1-result.xml
     [39] http://www.w3.org/International/its/tests/test1/Translate1-result.xml

   and transform that into a RDF/XML document

   scribe: so mapping would be a simple xslt stylesheet

   tadej: right now the data that we expect in the rdf file will
   be for disambiguation, ne terms etc.
   ... so things that don't appear in global rules
   ... we can defintetely work with option a) to do that
   ... so there is no use case in producing b)
   ... so we can keep the use case in mind - in dublin we
   discussed a lot whether it is possible
   ... it is possible but takes a lot of effort to implement
   ... so for practical purposes the option a) is easier to do

   maxime: writing two options in the draft, asking for comments
   would be good

   <DomJones> I have to leave unfortunately. Apologies. Dom

   dave: going back to use cases ...
   ... obvious use case for option a is: extract connections
   between content and external entities
   ... and publish it in NIF ontology
   ... so that would be a way to collect the data from an ITS
   parser into RDF
   ... use case is to collect it as a language resource for other
   NLP components

   tadej: that is one of the things we proposed in Dublin
   ... I'm worried about having an end-to-end use case
   ... this is rather a bridge use case, not doing something with

   dave: sure
   ... if anybody can see a use to cause an implementation, it is
   a valid use case
   ... people in the localization industry won't jump into this
   soon, but maybe in language resources area

   tadej: agree
   ... sebastian wrote a long mail before the meeting describing
   ... even NIF has to grow more to accomodate these use cases
   ... so this particular part might be delayed

   maxime: for option a we would need a standard output

   felix: that would be part of the recommendation

   <tadej> felix: Can someone update the google doc on ITS-RDF
   integration to update it to standards-language?

   <scribe> ACTION: maxime to write something for option b) of rdf
   conversion [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-146 - Write something for option b)
   of rdf conversion [on Maxime Lefrançois - due 2012-07-05].

   <scribe> ACTION: felix to write something for option a) of rdf
   conversion, plus XSLT [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-147 - Write something for option a)
   of rdf conversion, plus XSLT [on Felix Sasaki - due



     [42] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Jun/0158.html

   tadej: above is the list of latest examples
   ... I defined "entityRel" attribute to determine the
   relationship for the link
   ... a NE, term, WSD, or NE type
   ... only bigger mismatch is: instead of having entityRel for
   each type we would define individual attributes
   ... that's the only way to keep this part consistent
   ... other issue that in ITS 1.0, the attributes only mention

   <mlefranc> ACTION: maxime to use the standard output XML files
   and the already written RDF vocabulary to draft a XML->RDF/XML
   XSLT stylesheet [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-148 - Use the standard output XML
   files and the already written RDF vocabulary to draft a
   XML->RDF/XML XSLT stylesheet [on Maxime Lefrançois - due

   tadej: i.e. term=yes, termInfo, termInfoRef
   ... so I'd propose different attributes
   ... at the end it is the question of markup - consistency vs.
   backwards compatibility
   ... keeping strict compatibility will lead to more markup
   ... more specifc, the term data category is the same
   ... except that we allow people to specify terminology lexcion
   ... and there is looser support for identifiers

   <Pedro> sorry, but my micro does not work :-(

   pedro, you are now not muted anymore

   <tadej> Pedro: ...

   <tadej> Pedro: We wanted to discuss the event in Madrid.

   <tadej> fsasaki: Can we continue with this topic next week?


Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: felix to think about a round tripping test suite
   data package [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: felix to write something for option a) of rdf
   conversion, plus XSLT [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: maxime to use the standard output XML files and
   the already written RDF vocabulary to draft a XML->RDF/XML XSLT
   stylesheet [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: maxime to write something for option b) of rdf
   conversion [recorded in

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [48]scribe.perl version
    1.136 ([49]CVS log)
    $Date: 2012/06/28 15:16:12 $

     [48] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [49] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2012 15:56:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:31:45 UTC