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

Thanks a million for this! MS word is fine, or feel free to make 
correction directly to the wiki text.

cheers,
Dave

On 15/09/2012 15:07, Olaf-Michael Stefanov wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>
>