- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 13:54:02 +0200
- To: Tatiana Gornostay <tatiana.gornostay@tilde.lv>
- Cc: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>, "public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>, Mârcis Pinnis <marcis.pinnis@tilde.lv>, Raivis Skadiòð <Raivis.Skadins@tilde.lv>, Andrejs Vasiïjevs <Andrejs@tilde.lv>
- Message-ID: <CAL58czqzi6oxOBNmjvW-KK=TjFYpekY==9w9QxCVTLQ0rA4Cgw@mail.gmail.com>
Dear Tatiana, all, 2012/10/3 Tatiana Gornostay <tatiana.gornostay@tilde.lv> > Dear Felix, Yves, Dear All,**** > > ** ** > > W.r.t. the ongoing discussion on *toolInfo* and *mtConfidence*, I have in > mind the following potential attributes proposed by Tilde in view of > terminology use case, I mean, *its-termInfoRef*, *its-termCandidate*, and > *its-termConfidence* and their values. > Would it also work to just add "termConfidence" to http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#terminology-implementation we then could say: something is a term then the confidence is 1, that is <span its:term="yes" its:termInfoRef="...">...</span> (ITS 1.0 or ITS 2.0) is equal to <span its:term="yes" its:termInfoRef="..." termConfidence="1">...</span> (ITS 2.0) and a term candidate would be <span its:term="yes" its:termInfoRef="..." termConfidence="0.9">...</span> (ITS 2.0) Felix > These are not represented in the current draft and if we go this way then > we will have to discuss and, probably, add them. I can remember that Tadej > raised this questionin Prague and we did not talk about it, unfortunately. > On the other hand, as soon as we start the project we will have opportunity > and time to do it and my colleagues will also join the discussion.**** > > ** ** > > With best wishes,**** > > Tatiana**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org] > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 03, 2012 12:29 AM > *To:* Yves Savourel > *Cc:* public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > > *Subject:* Re: [ISSUE-42] Wording for the tool information markup**** > > ** ** > > Hi Yves, all,**** > > ** ** > > no opinion on my side on the delimiter topic, sorry for bringing it up. A > comment on the tool specific aspect below.**** > > 2012/10/2 Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>**** > > > <doc its:toolRefs="mtConfidence/file:///tools.xml#T1" > > xlmns:its="http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its"> > >**** > > > Would it make sense to use a different delimiter? "/" may conflict with > "/" in paths.**** > > Hmm... almost any ASCII delimiter may also be in the path. The first > occurrence is the delimiter. > But I suppose '|' could be used instead. It just doesn't look as graceful > for some reason.**** > > > > > Do you need the "dataCategory" attribute? It seems the > > data category is made explicit via the reference mechanism in > "its:toolRefs". > > Also, dropping the "dataCategory" attribute allows then to refer to > > the same tools from various data categories - e.g. OKAPI used for quality > > issue versus for creating translation metadata etc.**** > > I'm not sure we can go from many data category instances to one tool > information. And this is where I'm having trouble with tool information: > > 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**** > > > http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#mtconfidence-implementation > **** > > 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?**** > > ** ** > > **** > > , 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: ...". **** > > ** ** > > So you could achieve that by changing your proposal like this**** > > <its:processInfo>**** > > <its:toolInfo xml:id="T1">**** > > <its:toolName>Bing Translator</its:toolName>**** > > <its:toolVersion>123</its:toolVersion>**** > > <its:toolAddInfo datacategory="mtconfidence">ja-t-it</its:toolAddInfo> > <its:toolInfo>**** > > <its:toolInfo xml:id="T2">**** > > <its:toolName>myMT</its:toolName>**** > > <its:toolVersion>456</its:toolVersion>**** > > <its:toolAddInfo datacategory="mtconfidence">Domain:IT-Pair:IT-JA</its:AddInfo>**** > > ** ** > > <its:toolInfo>**** > > <its:processInfo>**** > > ** ** > > 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" > at**** > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Oct/0000.html > **** > > ** ** > > Best,**** > > ** ** > > Felix**** > > ** ** > > **** > > , etc. It seems each data category will need one or two entry that mean > different things depending on the data category. We can use a common > element for this, but then we need to have one tool information per data > category. > > Maybe the examples people are working on (action items 239 to 243 for > Arle, Phil, Declan and Tadej) will help in defining this. > > Cheers > -yves > > > **** > > > > **** > > ** ** > > -- > Felix Sasaki**** > > DFKI / W3C Fellow**** > > ** ** > -- Felix Sasaki DFKI / W3C Fellow
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2012 11:54:32 UTC