Re: [ACTION-256]: Compile and circulate itsTool examples togehter with proposal text

Hi Yves, all,
essentially your outline is right, except I don't think we've had a 
concensus on the inclusion of global rules here (as well as in other 
data categories, but lets do that elsewhere).

So to consider reasons got gloabl rules for mtConfidence score,
1) whether we need global for supporting pointer is blocked on the XLIFF 
mapping (here, I agree with Felix, that if XLIFF mapping is the only 
usecase for pointers, then specifying this in a separate mapping rather 
than via a generic feature in ITS would be better in terms of simplfying 

2) whether we need global rules for convenience is I think is a "no", 
since in general, we need to specify a different confidence score for 
every segment so we are unlikely to define it for sets of nodes via rules

3) whether we need global rules to support annotation of attributes is 
still an issue as discussed at:

In Lyon, however, David expressed the view that this was important, 
given the common use of translatable strings in, for examples, img 
attributes. I spoke recently to Enda McDonnell, head of engineering at 
Alchemy Software (CAT tool vendor) who was also of the opinion that 
support for translatable attributes was an important use case.

So here is the revised Mtconfidence data category wording and examples - 
with global rules (but no pointers for now). Note, I've specifically 
used attribute examples for the global rules. I didn't immediately see 
similar examples so comments welcome on this usage.

Are we near concensus - barring the pointer/XLIFF mapping issue?


On 07/11/2012 18:12, Yves Savourel wrote:
> Hi all,
>> which can be in the same file or in external file,
>> you would encode everything into single URL:
>> its:toolsRef="MTConfidence|"
> I'm looking at the current draft for MT Confidence and I'm not sure I understand why mtConfidenceScore is not defined either in the global rule or as local attribute. But maybe that's a moot point.
> My understanding is that now MT Confidence would have:
> Global:
> - a required selector
> - a required mtConfidenceScore
> - a required its:toolsRef
> Local:
> - a required mtConfidenceScore
> - a required its:toolsRef
> its:toolsRef would be defined separately, including what parameters it must use (version and value).
> And in the MT confidence section we would just define what goes in value.
> Is that what we all have in mind?
> Thanks,
> -yves

Received on Thursday, 8 November 2012 00:57:25 UTC