RE: [ISSUE-42] Wording for the tool information markup

>> The mtConfidence need to have a defined way to specify the engine used
> Is there really a defined way? The current version of the draft at
> says:
> "Some examples of values are:
> A BCP 47 language tag with t-extension, e.g. ja-t-it for an Italian to Japanese MT engine
> A Domain as per the Section 6.9: Domain
> A privately structured string, eg. Domain:IT-Pair:IT-JA, IT-JA:Medical, etc."
> To me that is the same as saying: you can use anything. 
> Of course we can wrap the "anything" in a field saying "here is MT engine information".
> Is that what you mean?

Yes, that what I meant: the value may be anything, but I assume we need to know where to get that value from.

> the Text analysis may need something else
> I actually doubt that the text analysis "anything" 
> will be more specific. My prediction is that there 
> will be not more interop than saying "in this field 
> there is data category specific information: ...".  
> ...
> <its:toolAddInfo datacategory="mtconfidence">ja-t-it</its:toolAddInfo>
> ...
> and allow for several addInfo elements in one "toolInfo".
> You won't gain a lot from these, but not less as with "FR-to-EN-General"
> inside "toolValue"

Indeed. We could do that.
Assuming each data category does not need more than one 'info'
Which seems to be the case.

It feels really complicated to get the actual data though. But maybe it's fine.

I'm getting the vague impression that no one really cares: so I'm starting to wonder if the toolInfo elements are really that wanted?

Could we get away with simply toolRefs, with the URI pointing to some non-ITS resource or being just an identifier?


Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2012 22:02:10 UTC