W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > April 2013

RE: [ISSUE-55] ITS in XLIFF - CAT tool requirements

From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 06:41:20 -0600
To: "'Dave Lewis'" <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>, <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <007001ce3f56$b17a6950$146f3bf0$@com>
Hi Dave,

Here are a few comments for Anuar:

=== Translate:

- another way to 'represent' original structural-type elements with translate='no' is to not extract them at all.

- and inline content that is with translate='no' in the original file is also often represented as an inline code.


=== Terminology:

- "...the relevant its:annotatorsRef link that can be followed to display more information about the engine that generated the annotation"
Note that the IRI provided by its:annotatorsRef is not necessarily a link:
>From the spec: "No single means is specified for how this IRI should be used to indicate processor information. Possible mechanisms are: to encode information directly in the IRI, e.g. as parameters; to reference an external resource that provides such information, e.g. an XML file or an RDF declaration; or to reference another part of the document that provides such information."


=== Element Within Text:

- IMO there should be no such data category used in XLIFF. On of the goal of converting to XLIFF is to separate inline from no-inline codes and therefore all inline codes should already be represented by an inline XLIFF element. Original content that is nested should be represented in separate text unit.


=== Domain:

- there is no such attribute as its:domain.
The document is probably referring to itsx:domain.
 

=== Text Analysis:

- its:taSource value is not a URL.


=== MT confidence:

- "...This will be represented in XLIFF using a match-quality attribute accompanied by a xlf:orgin attribute with value “MT”
As far as I can tell the mapping in the wiki is not reflecting the latest discussions. e.g. using xlf:origin='mt' is not useful (see discussion here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Mar/0135.html)


=== Localization quality Issue:

- "Each record can include a type strong"
What's a 'type strong'?


=== Localization Quality Rating:

- "The whole target document, the target of a translation unit, a target segment or a target subsegment can be annotated with a localisation quality measure."
while it's true that technically a sub-segment could be rated, I would use segment-level rating as the lowest level, anything under that may be very difficult to work with in practice.


That's all for now.
-yves


-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Lewis [mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie] 
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 7:00 PM
To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Subject: [ISSUE-55] ITS in XLIFF - CAT tool requirements

Hi all,
As you may know, we have an intern Anuar Serikov, who will be working on support for ITS annotation in the open source CAT tool OmegaT.

As an first step we've produced a rough draft set of requirements for how users of a CAT tool could interact with ITS2.0 annotations at:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vt3a3wWFPFrEG8tS9X3RMClKVjV8xDXqWNHB4g8VGJw/edit?usp=sharing

This may be of interest in those looking at the XLIFF-ITS mapping, since the requirements assume use of ITS within XLIFF. Any comments or feedback would be very welcome.

Regards,
Dave
Received on Monday, 22 April 2013 12:41:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:32:07 UTC