- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 14:57:45 +0200
- To: Mārcis Pinnis <marcis.pinnis@tilde.lv>
- Cc: Tatiana Gornostay <tatiana.gornostay@tilde.lv>, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>, "public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>, Raivis Skadiņš <Raivis.Skadins@tilde.lv>, Andrejs Vasiļjevs <Andrejs@tilde.lv>
- Message-ID: <CAL58czr78Nk=7B5R1P9V0CRV0B_FGsOODg63Jj7GnfqfBFT_kw@mail.gmail.com>
2012/10/4 MÄrcis Pinnis <marcis.pinnis@tilde.lv> > Dear Felix,**** > > ** ** > > Having only the confidence distinguishing between an automatically > identified term and a user approved term is not enough as various term > annotation tools can have different confidence scores (they may be also in > log form depending on the implementation). Thus having a strict value ā1ā > for user approved/ term-bank based terms is not enough. In an ideal > scenario, at least from my perspective, there should be a way to identify > who (a system, which system, a user, who?, and authority, which authority?) > annotated each term (not just in document level, but also in individual > term level) and what is the confidence of the respective identifier given > to the term candidate (or even a term). > Understand. That might bring us to "toolinfo" again. The solution that Yves mentioned at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Oct/0035.html would allow you to create identifiers for this complex type of information. > **** > > ** ** > > To make it a bit more simple, using only termConfidence to distinguish > between user approved or trusted terms is not enough as the termConfidence > is not reliable for such purposes.**** > > ** ** > > A natural representation, in my opinion, would identify the āannotatorā > (using categories ā term bank, user, automatic tool, authority), the term > confidence and the ID of the āannotatorā (in order to identify the > annotator precisely).**** > > ** ** > > Of course, for TermBank based terms there should be also a reference > pointer so that more information could be identified. > Understand - the question mainly is: what needs to be standardized, and what could be a URI to that complex information. > **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Actually ... one question that is* out of topic *here ... I tried > following your discussions about the MT related āTranslateā data category > and a question arose: do you distinguish between something that:**** > > **1) **has to be passed through a translation system, but should not > be translated (should be kept as is, but is helpful for disambiguation of > the translatable parts);**** > > **2) **has to be completely ignored and not even passed through a > translation system (for instance, numbers in tables, encrypted images > within HTML5, etc.).**** > > ** ** > > From what I have understood (maybe I did not get the full picture) ā the > āTranslateā tag is meant only for an MT system to tell it that something > has to be kept as is, but some parts could be irrelevant to send through > the MT systems, but that is not solved by the Translate tag. > "Translate" in fact is very general and doesn't distinguish between 1) and 2). E.g. IIRC, in Okapi it is used also to create pseudo translated text. Best, Felix > **** > > ** ** > > Best regards,**** > > MÄrcis Pinnis**** > > Researcher**** > > Tilde**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org] > *Sent:* Thursday, October 04, 2012 2:54 PM > *To:* Tatiana Gornostay > *Cc:* Yves Savourel; public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org; MÄrcis Pinnis; > Raivis SkadiÅÅ”; Andrejs Vasiļjevs > > *Subject:* Re: [ISSUE-42] Wording for the tool information markup**** > > ** ** > > 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**** > > ** ** > -- Felix Sasaki DFKI / W3C Fellow
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2012 12:58:16 UTC