- From: David Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
- Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 02:00:08 +0100
- To: "Pedro L. Díez Orzas" <pedro.diez@linguaserve.com>
- CC: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4FA87018.2000906@cs.tcd.ie>
Hi Pedro, Sorry, I didn't yet fill in the details of how I thought this might work for cache status, which would simply be: * The original content is not saved in the cache (i.e., it is new or has been updated): (re)translation is needed the source document or element would have attribute: ready-to-process = cache-source ready-at = <the time at which it would be ready to cache> * The translated content is not saved in the cache (i.e., it has not been previously translated or has expired): translation is needed the translation document or element would have attributes: ready-to-process = cache-target ready-at = <the time at which it would be ready to cache> * Neither the original nor the translated page are saved in the cache: both need to be cached you could either have both the above, or in cases where the source and target are in the same file use: ready-to-process = cache-source-and-target ready-at = <the time at which it would be ready to cache> Note, there is a revised flag there that could also be used if useful So, if I understand this right I think the readiness attributes would provide equivalent meta-data. However, if you think this is a distinct use case, i.e. implementors who would implement the cacheStatus are specifically only interested in that functionally and would be unlikely to also implement a more general readiness data category, then definitely we should be considering a separate data category. cheers, Dave On 07/05/2012 18:32, Pedro L. Díez Orzas wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > I will look at it very carefully as soon as I can, since they are > really major changes, but a priori I do not understand why to > consolidate and to remove cacheStatus, since for me this is a > completely different metadata than processTrigger, processStatus or > other "status" that answers completely different requirements. > > As I explained in the notes and definition of cacheStatus, this > metadata is not for localization chain o whatever localisation > process, but for real time translation systems and their caching > needs. In this respect I would put it again as it was (if you want it > can called only "cache", without "status") and sorry for any confusion > I could produce about it. > > Best, > > Pedro > > *__________________________________*** > > ** > > *Pedro L. Díez Orzas* > > *Presidente Ejecutivo/CEO* > > *Linguaserve Internacionalización de Servicios, S.A.* > > *Tel.: +34 91 761 64 60 > Fax: +34 91 542 89 28 * > > *E-mail: **pedro.diez@linguaserve.com > <mailto:pedro.diez@linguaserve.com>*** > > *www.linguaserve.com <http://www.linguaserve.com/>* > > ** > > «En cumplimiento con lo previsto con los artículos 21 y 22 de la Ley > 34/2002, de 11 de julio, de Servicios de la Sociedad de Información y > Comercio Electrónico, le informamos que procederemos al archivo y > tratamiento de sus datos exclusivamente con fines de promoción de los > productos y servicios ofrecidos por LINGUASERVE INTERNACIONALIZACIÓN > DE SERVICIOS, S.A. En caso de que Vdes. no deseen que procedamos al > archivo y tratamiento de los datos proporcionados, o no deseen recibir > comunicaciones comerciales sobre los productos y servicios ofrecidos, > comuníquenoslo a clients@linguaserve.com, y su petición será > inmediatamente cumplida.» > > "According to the provisions set forth in articles 21 and 22 of Law > 34/2002 of July 11 regarding Information Society and eCommerce > Services, we will store and use your personal data with the sole > purpose of marketing the products and services offered by LINGUASERVE > INTERNACIONALIZACIÓN DE SERVICIOS, S.A. If you do not wish your > personal data to be stored and handled, or you do not wish to receive > further information regarding products and services offered by our > company, please e-mail us to clients@linguaserve.com. Your request > will be processed immediately." > > *____________________________________*** > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *De:*David Lewis [mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie] > *Enviado el:* lunes, 07 de mayo de 2012 14:51 > *Para:* public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > *Asunto:* Re: [ACTION-79]Consider consolidation of status-related data > categories and process trigger > > Hi Pedro, Guys, > Following the previous discussion on the proposal for consolidation > around these data categories I have now made the following changes to > the requirements document. > > Pedro, as discussed on Friday's call could you and any other > interested parties examine these changes and flag anything issues on > this thread. > > 1) I have update processTrigger and changed its name to 'readiness' as > previously discussed > http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements#readiness > > 2) I have moved the need for a process model to a new requirement to > reflect its relevance to several of the other data categories, > including readiness, progress-indicator and provenance, and it need > for further careful consideration: > http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements#Process_Model > > 3) As part of this consolidation I have removed the data categories of: > processTrigger, cacheStatus, legalStatus, processState, > proofreadingState and revision state > > 4) I've updated the data category tables and the related interests > accordingly > > 5) I've highlighted issues (in bold below) to consider about the > following properties of the removed processTrigger that are no longer > present (as recorded in the notes for the readiness data category) > > * /contentType/, values: MIME or custom values - This indicates the > format or the type of the content used in the content in order to > apply the right filter or normalization rules, and the subsequent > processes. For example, to express HTML we could use: > "contentType: text/html: *consider consolidation with formatType > or languageResource* > > >> Not agree, unless formatType refers really to computer format and > not like now: about the format or service for which the content is > produced (e.g., subtitles, spoken text) > > * /sourceLang/-- value: standard ISO 639 value - this value > indicates the source language for the current translation > requested. It is different from the sourceLanguage (provenance) > Data Category , since this indicates the language the original > source text was and sourceLang indicates the current source > language to be used for the translation that can be different from > the original source - *this should be considered as an attribute > for proveance* > * /contentResultSource/ --value: yes / no. Indicates the format if > the Localisation chain needs to give back the original - *is this > necessary as an attribute here or as a separate attribute* > * /contentResultTarget/ -- value: monolingual, multilingual; > indicates if the resulting translation, in the cases of several > target languages, should be delivered in several monolingual > content files or in a single multilingual content file *this would > require a more general purpose return file indicator* > * /pivotLang/ - value: standard ISO value. Indicates the > intermediate language in the case is needed. Two examples: 1) > Going from a source language to two language variants (eg. into > Brazil and Portugal Portuguese), it is more cost-effective to go > to one first (being this first variant a "pivot" language) and to > revise later to the second variant; Going from one language to > another via an intermediate language (eg. from Maltese into > English and from English into Irish, because there is not direct > Maltese into Irish available translation). - *consider > consolidation with source language, , i.e. it is an attibute of > the source language* > > > Regards, > Dave > > On 04/05/2012 01:46, David Lewis wrote: > > Hi Moritz, guys, > I added this progress-indicator data category to the requirements: > http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements#progress-indicator > > Regards, > Dave > > 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 >> <mailto: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 Tuesday, 8 May 2012 01:00:41 UTC