Re: [All - a bit urgent: use case preparation for Prague] Re: [ACTION-145] Roundtrip use case demo documentation

Dear Dave and friends,

Attached is both an MS-Word and OpenOffice version of sections 1-5 of 
the text of the link you provided 
<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Simple_Segment_Machine_Translation_Use_Case_Demonstration#Summary> 
(with track changes in Final-show-mark-up format), with
1 correction to Section 1,
5 corrections to Section 2,
4 corrections to Section 3, and
3 corrections to Section 5 (whereby I'm a bit unsure if the 1st 
correction (replacing "as visible" with "is visible" in the 1st sentence).

Otherwise I find the text developing  very well for its intended purpose.

Please let me know, for future reference if MS-Word or OpenOffice 
versions are preferred.

Kind regards,
olaf-michael

On 2012-09-14 15:14, Dave Lewis wrote:
> Hi Felix,
> No problem on summary - done:
> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Simple_Segment_Machine_Translation_Use_Case_Demonstration#Summary
>
> Dave
>
> On 14/09/2012 09:06, Felix Sasaki wrote:
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> I'm changing the topic since I hope that we can decide on this soon, 
>> since many people already work on use case examples for the 
>> "implementation demo" session 25 September.
>>
>> Can we agree on the simple version? You write "A quick summary 
>> section directly giving the benefits as you suggest would definitely 
>> be good." - I just want to be sure that everybody would prepare 
>> something like that, along the lines mentioned below:
>>
>> - This is our implementation.
>>
>> - The metadata solves the following problems:
>>
>> (bullet list). Example for "translate": "translate metadata assures 
>> that pieces of content are not translated
>>
>> - Benefits: better translation quality, ...
>>
>> Above is basically what you created in the wiki, just scaled down. So 
>> details are fine too, but everybody is busy after the summer break, 
>> and what we currently mostly need are simple example - not for us, 
>> but the people (hopefully) watching us :)
>>
>> More comments (not so urgent ;) ) below.
>>
>>
>> 2012/9/14 Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie <mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>>
>>
>>     Hi Felix,
>>     Thanks for those suggestions. Currently, I was targetting this at
>>     a level useful primarily for communication within the WG leading
>>     upto Prague. So we can then refine these for a more general
>>     audience after that - when the spec is more stable.
>>
>>     A quick summary section directly giving the benefits as you
>>     suggest would definitely be good.
>>
>>     By general audience, I guess you still mean someone interested in
>>     the technical details of interoperability and wanting to
>>     understand the specific benefits of ITS? So the aim would be to
>>     get them reading and hopefully implementing (or asking a provider
>>     to implement) ITS2.0 - right?
>>
>>
>> A general audience would IMO be somebody who doesn't know about 
>> language technology, ITS metadata and the tools we are working on - 
>> but we want to convince him that the tools solve a real life problem.
>>
>>
>>     We are aiming for a sample online version of CMS LION exactly as
>>     you suggest - but we don't have a roll-out date yet -  a few
>>     month off I think. Certainly the aim is to have an interesting
>>     multiway (XLIFF/PROV/ITS/RDF/NIF) interoperability demonstrator
>>     for CNGL, rather than a product or downloadable library.
>>
>>
>>
>> Understand, for TCD as an academic participant in the group / project 
>> that totally makes sense. However, for the industry partners I would 
>> hope that we can get something along the lines of Okapi or ITSTools. 
>> The main point is not open source or not, but re-producability.
>>
>>
>>     You are right about the language info not being directly used in
>>     the scenario, since we use translate to impact the MT behaviour.
>>     It was more to help us test out the CMS-LION parsing for this.
>>     We'll have a bit more of a think of a good example for language
>>     info - its a bit tricky to think of one in HTML5.
>>
>>
>> The main use case for language information is to map non xml:lang 
>> attributes to the value you would expect xml:lang. That can e.g. 
>> support workflow decisions ("should this content go to MT engine / 
>> translator A or B?"). So if you have an example along those lines in 
>> XML, I'm happy to create an HTML5 version.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Felix
>>
>>
>>     Regards,
>>     Dave
>>
>>
>>     On 12/09/2012 09:01, Felix Sasaki wrote:
>>
>>
>>         hanks a lot for the template and the example. I would propose
>>         to simplify the description a lot. It is too detailed for a
>>         general audience. We can add more detailed descriptions in a
>>         separate section. But the main section could just consist of
>>         short descriptions - max 1 paragraph for each item - saying:
>>
>>         - This is our implementation: CMS Lion, Statistical MT System.
>>
>>         - The metadata solves the following problems:
>>
>>         (bullet list). Example for "translate": "translate metadata
>>         assures that pieces of content are not translated
>>
>>         - Benefits: better translation quality, ...
>>
>>         - Example.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Felix Sasaki
>> DFKI / W3C Fellow
>>
>