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

Dear Felix, Arle, Dave, all,

 

Of course, any expert contribution is always welcome, so go ahead if you
think it is helpful. 

 

Nevertheless, I completely agree with Arle and again, as far as we know, the
HTTP headers provides information about cache in the client server side (so
it could be used for the case that Dave pointed out about staging server in
the client side), but it does not provides metadata to indicate to an
external real time translation and publication system whether it has to
cache a certain web content after being translated and published in real
time or a part of the page. This is a content metadata is to be used and to
cache by an external system from the client server at several content
levels. 

 

In any case, we are already using a lot of time for this, when this metadata
is thought for emerging technologies that still not many people use (but we
are convinced will do) , and that we can directly manage with our clients
(we are actually doing it with real life clients). 

 

I consider more profitable to go ahead with discussions about other data
category (like processTrigger or readiness, or other) that are much more
extended (localization chains, for instance), so if you think this
“cacheStatus” (which category name is probably not the best, and it should
be more something that express “indicator from clients whether the web
content have to be cached by real time translation and publication systems”)
it is not clear enough (I think I already explained enough our position
about this) let’s drop it.

 

Best,

Pedro

 

  _____  

De: Arle Lommel [mailto:arle.lommel@dfki.de] 
Enviado el: miércoles, 09 de mayo de 2012 10:28
Para: Felix Sasaki
CC: Pedro L. Díez Orzas; David Lewis; public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Asunto: Re: [ACTION-79]Consider consolidation of status-related data
categories and process trigger

 

Hi Felix,

 

I think that with the intended scenario Pedro proposed the HTTP headers
would not be granular enough. The cacheStatus could apply as far down as the
segment level, although the more likely scenario is for it to apply at
either the document level or the equivalent of the DITA topic level. Since a
web page could potentially pull multiple topics into one place, the document
itself would have a mix of cache statuses depending on the cache status of
the objects it references. Perhaps Pedro can clarify, but even if that is
the case, I don't think it would hurt for Yves to get involved, so I'd say
to go for bringing him in.

 

-Arle

 

Sic scripsit Felix Sasaki in May 9, 2012 ad 08:46 :





Pedro, all,

 

I am wondering if this discussion could benefit from input of an HTTP
expert. I have the feeling that the existing HTTP headers might be
sufficient to realize this requirement. Do you mind if I take Yves Lafon

http://www.w3.org/People/all#ylafon

into the loop?

 

Felix

2012/5/8 Pedro L. Díez Orzas <pedro.diez@linguaserve.com>

Dear Dave,

 

First of all, thank you for the consolidation task, which is hard, complex
and “risky business” :-).

 

I would like to distinguish between cacheStatus and the rest. 

 

About this specific case of cache status, I probably now understand the
confusion. In you mail of the thread “Re: targetPointer Requirement update”,
mail 08/05/2012 13:49, you mention “ii) a realtime translation workflow,
where content is put on a cache (I prefer perhaps a term like 'staging
server' to avoid confusion with 'web cache')”. Instead, the data category
cacheStatus is not intended for the content in the staging or hidden in the
client server, but for the source/translated/both in the side of the real
time translation server. Actually, I did not considered the staging server
in this, and probably it should be done in the way you suggest in your mail.
Certainly the confusion was my fault when I described as:

 

*	The original content is not saved in the cache (i.e., it is new or
has been updated): (re)translation is needed 

*	The translated content is not saved in the cache (i.e., it has not
been previously translated or has expired): translation is needed 

*	Neither the original nor the translated page are saved in the cache:
both need to be cached 

 

It refers not the client side or CMS, but to the Real Time Translation
System (RTTS) , which actually generates the web cache. For example, the
value for timestamp is not the client who put it, like in ready-at = <the
time at which it would be ready to cache>, but the RTTS when it does the
caching. In that respect, the client indicates in the final HTML web page
the values and whether a page or a part of a page needs to be cached or not,
and if source, target or both:

 

*	cached - values: yes, no; 
*	scope - values: source, target, both 
*	timestamp - date and time 

 

In this scenario, the source pages (or parts of pages) are always translated
in real time, and the translated pages (or parts) can be added to the cache
to speed up future accesses, but some pages not only does not need to be
cached, but needs not to be cached obligatory (for example pages in private
areas, transactional pages of an e-commerce process or a bank…).

 

I cannot tell 100% if 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, but even If it is 50%
I would keep it separately, in the same way than other in
“Internationalization” section. It is really a multilingualWebCache metadata
in the pages for navigation of the final user. 

 

I hope this helps, and I will try to answer the rest before Thursday’s
meeting. 

 

Best,

Pedro

 

 

  _____  

De: David Lewis [mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie] 
Enviado el: martes, 08 de mayo de 2012 3:00
Para: "Pedro L. Díez Orzas"
CC: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org


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

 

 

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 <tel:%2B34%2091%20761%2064%2060>  91 761 64 60
Fax: +34 91 542 89 28 <tel:%2B34%2091%20542%2089%2028>  

E-mail:  <mailto:pedro.diez@linguaserve.com> 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#readine
ss

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#progres
s-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#proces
s_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> 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 or revision state, since these can be values of process
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.

 

 

 

 

 

 





 

-- 
Felix Sasaki

DFKI / W3C Fellow