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

Re: [ACTION-79]Consider consolidation of status-related data categories and process trigger

From: David Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 01:46:14 +0100
Message-ID: <4FA326D6.9030603@cs.tcd.ie>
To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Hi Moritz, guys,
I added this progress-indicator data category to the requirements:


On 28/04/2012 22:11, David Lewis wrote:
> Hi Morwitz,
> I moved this onto this separate thread related to the relevant 
> consolidation action.
> I think there are two different data categories here.
> What you describe is a progress indicator. This would be a common 
> feature on a lot of CMS-based and crowdsourced translation tools. It 
> would be measured as the number of segments (or perhaps words) of a 
> document (or a group of document representing a job) that have been 
> processes as a proportion of the total that need to be processed.
> The other, which is what the current text for 'process state' 
> (http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements#process_state) 
> specifies, is an indication of  which point in a process sequence has 
> currently been reached. As discussed, this could be covered by the 
> processTrigger/readiness data category we are discussing.
> Moritz, does this distinction match with your view here? If so then we 
> could introduce a new 'progress-indicator' data category requirement, 
> and then continue discussing the consolidation of 'process state' with 
> processTrigger/readiness.
> thanks,
> Dave
> On 27/04/2012 18:40, Moritz Hellwig wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I might make this a separate thread, but since we are already talking 
>> about processState here...
>> There were quite a lot of requests from our editorial team to have 
>> something like
>> processIndicator
>> Values integer, 0 to 100
>> Zero would be "LSP process not begun"-ish, 100 would be "Completed".
>> There are - from our point of view - considerable advantages:
>> A) we can show a process progress indicator (in whichever visual 
>> representation) that does not require an understanding of what the 
>> actual process phase is on the MT side.
>> B) the indicator can be agnostic to the number of processes / stages 
>> on the side of the LSP. If you run a hundred separate processes or 
>> feedback loops: fine by me.
>> This would be beneficial for e.g. content creators who are unfamiliar 
>> with the language technology, its processes and so on. Also, it would 
>> allow us to built dashboards and generate reports e.g. to show and 
>> sort by progression & keep better track of multilingual projects.
>> Any thoughts?
>> Cheers,
>> Moritz
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> On 27.04.2012, at 01:14, "David Lewis" <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie 
>> <mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>> wrote:
>>> Pedro,
>>> Yes, the redundancy of process state is one outcome of what I'm 
>>> proposing here.
>>> The key difference is that the proposal is that the data category 
>>> indicates the next process that should be performed, rather than 
>>> indicating the current process in operation. The motivation is that 
>>> the readiness to undergo a new process step is more useful to a 
>>> document in a CMS, then knowing the current state that is operating 
>>> on it.
>>> Complementary to this, provenance indicates that a process is 
>>> completed, and associated with this records useful information 
>>> needed to monitor correct or efficient process operation, perhaps as 
>>> needed to monitor a service level agreement.
>>> Neither process trigger or provenance however actually aim to 
>>> control process flow. This is a complex topic which therefore is 
>>> probably out of scope.
>>> What we do need however, is a way of defining  the values to use for 
>>> referencing processes, i.e. from both the 'request-process' and the 
>>> process reference in provenance. For this we may want both a default 
>>> set in the standard, and a way of unambiguously defining these for a 
>>> particular business case. The key thing in any one case of 
>>> interoperability is that the interoperating implementations exchange 
>>> and understand the _same set_ of process values.
>>> let keep the discussion going on the list,
>>> Dave
>>> On 26/04/2012 15:29, Pedro L. Díez Orzas wrote:
>>>> Hi David,
>>>> I need to consider this more carefully.
>>>> But, what I see is that *process state *is perhaps redundant 
>>>> with:proofreading state orrevision state, since these can be values 
>>>> ofprocess state: proofreaded, revised, reviewed, translated, localized…
>>>> Best,
>>>> Pedro
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> *De:*David Lewis [mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie]
>>>> *Enviado el:* jueves, 26 de abril de 2012 1:52
>>>> *Para:* public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
>>>> *Asunto:* Re: [all] Discussion on proposed metadata categories: 
>>>> approvalStatus
>>>> Hi Moritz,
>>>> I think you make a very good general point here. It may be a bit 
>>>> too open ended to specify data categories that hardwire the 
>>>> completion of a specific step. We would run into the same issues we 
>>>> have with defining the different process values as we discussed 
>>>> around process trigger. Also, its not clear to me that all status 
>>>> flag suggestion for current steps, e.g. legal approval, really need 
>>>> to be separated from other steps.
>>>> I think therefore we could generalise this as part of the process 
>>>> trigger data category as you suggest. This could allow us to 
>>>> consolidate *approvalStatus*, *cacheStatus*,*legalStaus*, 
>>>> *proofReading state* and *revision state* (and delegate the 
>>>> definition of these steps to data values rather than individual 
>>>> data categories). We can address *cacheStatus*, and at he same time 
>>>> generalise it to other processes than just translation, by 
>>>> including the time stamp and a revision flag.
>>>> Also, I think the priority data category should be included here, 
>>>> as translation could consist of many different processes in 
>>>> combination, so it semantics are dependent on which one. At the 
>>>> same time we may also be interested in defining priorities even for 
>>>> non translation activities, such as review.
>>>> *requested-process* (which has the name of the next process requested)
>>>> *process-ref *(which may allow us to point to an external set of 
>>>> process definitions used for processRequested if the default value 
>>>> set is not used)
>>>> *ready-at* (defines the time the content is ready for the process, 
>>>> it could be some time in the past, or some time in the future - 
>>>> this support part of the cacheStatus function)
>>>> *revised* (yes/no - indicated is this is a different version of 
>>>> content that was previously marked as ready for the declared process)
>>>> *priority* (I think for now we should keep this simple and just 
>>>> have values high/low )
>>>> *complete-by* (provides a target date-time for completing the process)
>>>> Any thoughts on this suggestion. Pedro, Ryan, Moritz, Des, I think 
>>>> this impacts on data categories you have an interest in.
>>>> Also, DavidF, Pedro, Ryan, do you think this makes *process state* 
>>>> redundant? As a status flag are we more interested in what process 
>>>> to do next, rather than which one is finished. At the same time the 
>>>> provenance data category could tell us which processes have already 
>>>> finished operating on the content.
>>>> cheers,
>>>> Dave
>>>> On 24/04/2012 11:11, Moritz Hellwig wrote:
>>>> to identify publication process metadata which might also be 
>>>> relevant for the LSP. I ran into a couple of questions though.
>>>> I’ll use approvalStatus as an example (from the requirements document):
>>>> >> approvalStatus
>>>> >> Information about the status of the content in a formal approval 
>>>> workflow
>>>> >> Indicates whether the content has been approved for release
>>>> >> Possible values:
>>>> >>>> yes
>>>> >>>> no
>>>> Approval can have many values which are rarely only “release 
>>>> yes|no” and they can be client/application-specific. However, none 
>>>> of these statuses seem to be relevant to the LSP, as they only 
>>>> precede or succeed the LSP’s processes.
Received on Friday, 4 May 2012 00:46:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:31:44 UTC