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

[All] Minutes MLW-LT call 2012-05-04 (DRAFT)

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 11:37:51 +0200
Message-ID: <CAL58czpsvEKbiseBB2708Kv5dr6xso+ViYxg4k19SmwQnoOQHQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
and below as text.



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


04 May 2012


      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012May/0031.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2012/05/04-mlw-lt-irc


          arle, daveL, des, df, fsasaki, milan, moritz, pedro,




     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Action Item Review
         2. [6]bringing the document up to spec
         3. [7]aob
     * [8]Summary of Action Items

   last meetings minutes approved

Action Item Review


      [9] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/overdue


     [10] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/36

   social media setup - what is the state?

   david: social setup is managed between felix, arle and richard
   - no need to track the item

   arle: like to see an ongoing action item for doing the social
   media outreach

   david: arle proposed to regularly review this - I'll change it
   to "ongoing social media outreach"
   ... new due date will be 18 May - title says "ongoing"

   now open action items


     [11] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/open

   felix: new due date for

     [12] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/77


     [13] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/open

   felix: ACTION-77 - due next Monday


     [14] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/76

   dave: new deadline should be 20 May


     [15] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/79

   dave: two parts - one what pedro did, one suggestion I made
   what we meant about trigger
   ... had some feedback from Moritz about separating that from
   progress state
   ... two things remain: I'll update that section on that
   ... so that we have separate data categories or values
   ... we need to decide: what are the values of processes?

   david: you will do the update by Monday?

   dave: yes


     [16] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/80

   tadej: there was my theory that the text analytics annotation
   would be a general superclass
   ... I think there should be a superclass, but it should not be
   text analytics annotation, since that implies that this is
   ... the general class would be to refer to an entity
   ... there is still an open question on the mtDisambiguation,
   the rest is quite clear

   dave: it's OK to have the issues open, as long as they are in
   the notes

   pedro: we can use very basic distinctions
   ... apart from the question "automatic generation or not"
   ... the difference for me is: are you tagging a part of the
   real content (terminology, named entity) or whether you are
   adding information, a kind of classificator
   ... you can add that additional information with a certain
   ... this is a very basic distinction

   tadej: we have also domain and genre, in the end they say the
   same thing
   ... they basically say "what is the topic of the document?"
   ... e.g. "advertising text"
   ... that might be the same piece of information for the MT
   disambiguation problem

   pedro: two distinctions according to the semantics - would be
   great to have feedback from piek vossen -
   ... you can have two types of information: subject or semantic
   ... it is true that the domain metadata covers that
   ... we have to see if we are going to add semantic primitives
   appart from domain

   dave: intention of domain data category could cover the whole
   document than just a term
   ... we might want to keep domain separately
   ... but that wouldn't stop you for terminology to bind a domain
   declaration to some terminology
   ... otherwise we need a terminology domain
   ... e.g. a news report mentioning terminology for the medical

   david: how does disambiguation data to genre?

   dave: mt disambiguatino relates to terms I think, on the term

   tadej: Mtdisambigation is supposed to mark up fragments of text
   with additional information that would help me
   ... is there something about mtdisambiguation that is not
   covered by domain?

   need to involve thomas from lucy and declan from DCU in the

   david: you mentioned people who understand that from the MT
   point of view
   ... we can also solicit feedback from asia online
   ... this will be local text fragments for MT in realtime
   ... asia online could give good feedback on this

   arle: I'll give another try on this

   david: some people in the working group, tadej, can you reach
   out to people like thomas from lucy and declan from dcu, to get
   their feedback by e.g. next week?

   tadej: yes, will do

   arle: will contact asia online guy again

   david: new deadline is next friday


     [17] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/62

   dave: might be defered until we have consolidated the data
   ... next week


     [18] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/67


     [19] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements_Assessment

   dave: sent a mail out last night

   URI above

   dave: I listed data categories, trying to keep the list up to
   ... some are ITS 1.0 requirements, we have to do that
   ... next column: I recorded IDs of people who responded to the
   ... terminlogoy, context and translate came up a lot
   ... in terms of difficulties, sometimes hard to see whether we
   understand the requirement and the use case
   ... or there is a consensus problem
   ... some technical knowledge sometimes hasn't emerged yet, e.g.
   mt disambiguation

   david: so a lot of interest in domain
   ... process triger
   ... id value is difficult
   ... context is important, but very difficult
   ... apart from the initial post we haven't discussed
   ... your action item is completed, now everyone should have a
   look to review it

   felix: propose an implementation commitment column

   dave: agree

   <Milan> BW: Disable (0 Mbit) 0 b/s (0 bytes) down, 0 b/s (0
   bytes) up

   <scribe> ACTION: daveL to add an implementation committment
   column to the table and ask people to populate it [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-82 - Add an implementation
   committment column to the table and ask people to populate it
   [on David Lewis - due 2012-05-11].

   pedro: reference to provenance group - the related action
   belongs to dave

   dave: yes, still working on that
   ... there will be some decisions about what we will have in the
   document, what external etc.
   ... I'll try and address that before early next week

   pedro: I have my name also in the "autolanguage processing
   ... need to clarify the purpose of this

   <scribe> .. pending is also the ACTION-64


   <trackbot> ACTION-64 -- David Lewis to discuss with pedro about
   providing feedback to best-practices group -- due 2012-05-08 --


     [21] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/64

   pedro: we only need to provide our input about best practices

   dave: I'll follow up with you, I talked to Richard about that,
   to get it published it needs a kind of committment
   ... to get it published you need to be involved

   pedro: won't have time, just FYI

   felix: please keep me in CC, I am also in the i18n core group
   and can maybe give additional information

bringing the document up to spec

   dave: we have a few weeks before we send a first draft out
   ... I am prioritzing the consolidation
   ... there is other issues like populating the use cases, to
   make it more understandable
   ... some requirements are stubs, that haven't been elaborated
   ... should we make more effort to make the document more

   <Arle> Felix: There is no real rule about that. Think about
   what your most important audience is. Think that most of your
   readers will know what directionality is and it is enough to
   have a pointer to ITS 1.0 or HTML dir attribute, that is

   <Arle> .. If there are different audiences then it is harder
   and you have to explain everything. But normally the
   requirement documents explain their audience and target only

   dave: we should be writing this to target people in the
   localization industry

   <Arle> Felix: I think one value of the group is that we should
   make outreach to people where the localization industry is
   normally not involved. E.g., Dave will meet people from the
   Microsoft browser side of things. If you want HTML5
   integration, it would help the localization industry.

   <Arle> .. But you need to communicate it intelligibly to the
   browser community. It is not something for the requirements
   document, but for a general strategy we should involve people
   from the HTML working group.

   <Arle> .. We should involve Richard, e.g., with his blog post
   on the translate attribute.

   <Arle> .. It is OK to have the loc focus, but don't treat the
   fact that this is happening in the W3C as just a coincidence.

   david: yes, it's an ultimate benefit for the downstream of the
   categories are taken up

   dave: best way to do that is to focus on explaining which
   sections focus on which product classes
   ... it is better to focus on getting somthing like arle's table
   so that they see which part is important for which audience

   felix: agree, having a table with pointers to different
   audiences is a good approach

   david: process diagrams will help too

   arle: maybe on monday we can discuss that as well


   felix: will continue the liaison discussion on Tuesday offline
   - sorry for my strong mail to the public list, will make "peace
   again" with David


Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: daveL to add an implementation committment column
   to the table and ask people to populate it [recorded in

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [23]scribe.perl version
    1.136 ( [24]CVS log)
    $Date: 2012/05/04 09:35:39 $

     [23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [24] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Friday, 4 May 2012 09:38:24 UTC

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