[Minutes] MLW-LT call 2013-02-06

Hi all,

here are the minutes from last week call one

apologies for the delay. Let me know if something (e.g. attendance) 
needs to be fixed.




       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

             MultilingualWeb-LT Working Group Teleconference

06 Feb 2013

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2013/02/06-mlw-lt-irc


           joerg, Naoto, chriLi, tadej, marcis, yves, daveL, pablo,




      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]testsuite update
          2. [5]Use case document for Rome
          3. [6]conformance type in LQI
          4. [7]regex definition issue-67 acton for Shaun
      * [8]Summary of Action Items

    Felix wants us to document high level cases before Rome

testsuite update

    DaveL asks Leroy for updates since Monday meeting

    Leroy: ? is committing 4 data categories, we're at 59%, up from

    <daveL> [9]http://tinyurl.com/its20-testsuite-dashboard

       [9] http://tinyurl.com/its20-testsuite-dashboard

    need all to provide updates, esp. those who haven't got their
    80%, esp. UL and Shawn

    Tadej says he's renamed several attributes, will break tests.
    Wants feedback

Use case document for Rome

    mail Don sent out this morning about M4 and M5. This may take
    down percentage even more.


      [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Feb/0024.html

    involves branching between conformance testing vs showing
    community that we have something useful (in Rome)

    Rome demos will not really affect percentages of what is
    completed to meeting milestones

    concern is that if we ask for metadata, while we can demo that
    we can open and read files, things may not be completely there

    demos may show things that are not complete test cases

    for the EU project, we'll also have a review in Rome, and we
    need to meet their milestones

    the w3c milestones give us a bit more time

    overall test delays need to be reported to Felix so that some
    deadlines can be adjusted (within limits)


      [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Feb/0019.html

    we need to understand that outreach effort (in Rome) is to demo
    useful work, vs. meeting EU and w3c deadlines/milestones


      [12] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Use_cases_-_high_level_summary

    Felix recommends that we update the high level wiki page to
    align with what the current state of ITS2 is

    and then use part of this as a model (before Rome).

    Needed for EU but also good for public (at Rome).

    This needs to match with posters (for which deadline is 15

    scribe: for Rome.

    Felix is suggesting updating the high level summary by 18

    Christian: Felix also brought to the table the suggestion that
    in the main specifications we want to refer to the use cases.

    For this we need to stabilize URIs. This can be done by
    publishing a recommendation.

    DaveL says we can do this. Take same approach we did before.

    DaveL says the WG did this for the requirements document

    DaveL asks whether anyone has any objections to use the simple
    MT cases?

    DaveL then says we'd need to go through these to compare with
    how the cases match the text.

    chriLi offers to take over this task if the partners have done
    the update a couple of days before the 18th

    chriLi says to meet this deadline we need input from partners 3
    days earlier.

    chriLi points out that 18 Feb is needed publication date

    we ask people to provide by 15 Feb (same day as posters) to
    update the high level summary page

    scribe: to enable the result to be publishable by 18 Feb.

    <daveL> action; dlewis6 to confirm dates for use case document

    <daveL> ACTION: dlewis6 to confirm dates for use case document
    publishing [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-443 - Confirm dates for use case
    document publishing [on David Lewis - due 2013-02-13].

    <scribe> agenda: issue 63

conformance type in LQI


      [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Feb/0017.html

    Phip has indicated that his company (DI) is interested in
    consuming this, and has another company that will provide

    Phil (not Phip)...

    <daveL> topic; Issue 75, clarification of applicability of
    domain mapping to a multidomain Post from christian


      [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Feb/0018.html

    also, point from pablo on referencing wiki material

      [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Feb/0020.html


      [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Feb/0020.html

    chriLi and DaveL asking whether anyone has any objections

    else will be edited into specs

    scribe: will be done through last call tracking page, by
    co-chairs (on basis of chriLi's text)

    Pablo points out that text is fine, but link will change (note
    taken: by DaveL). Felix will arrange to copy into persistent

regex definition issue-67 acton for Shaun


      [18] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/385

    <Yves_> There is some small fixes to work out

    <Yves_> (sorry ca't talk)

    <Yves_> mostly the regex work and we just need a few


      [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Feb/0014.html

    <Yves_> yes

    <daveL> topic; terminology and disambiguation issue-68 action
    for Tadej


      [20] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/435

    Tadej outlines discussion to merge the two (terminology and

    In the end, no merge but

    disabiguation is simplified

    <scribe> dropped graularity

    <tadej> [21]https://github.com/finnle/ITS-2.0-Testsuite/pull/5

      [21] https://github.com/finnle/ITS-2.0-Testsuite/pull/5

    renamed to text analysis (short version: Tan) instead of


      [22] https://github.com/finnle/ITS-2.0-Testsuite/pull/5/files

    this involves not too much work for implementors, mainly

    <Marcis> Tadej, in the e-mail you sent there is an attachment
    that says: "text-analysis-annotation" - should the annotation
    be dropped?! I agree to Yves who said that annotation mighy be

    also dropping disambigClassRef

    no changes for terminology, so still backwards compatible.

    DaveL asks for comments from others involved

    Marcis says, if I understand correctly, no change to

    it is important to drop the -annotation suffix.

    Tadej says he'll correct examples

    <joerg> Does this then resolve issue-68?

    Marcis says, as it now stands, issue 68 is resolved

    chriLi says the comment of Marcis is very relevalant.

    chriLi asks whether the data cat terminology should be

    <Marcis> Correction - I asked whether the issue would be
    resolved by the changes or not?!

    sorry, Marcis, thanks for correction.

    <joerg> Why should terminology being deprecated? We still have
    different use cases.

    Marcis says that as it now stands, the text-analysis data
    category does not cover all that the terminology category
    currently covers.

    chriLi says he, Tadej and Marcis volunteered to see if they
    could come up with an "enhanced" text-analysis category that
    allow coverage for "term"

    to subsume all the missing items from terminology

    <tadej> its:term=yes -> its:tanClassRef="nerd:Object"

    <Yves_> local term='no' can be used to override a global rule.

    DaveL asks what the difference is between its:term=no vs no
    term= entry

    DaveL summarizes: Marcis still sees a use case for having the
    capability for "term=yes/no", whether that is in a separate
    data category or in the tan(ex. disambig) category.

    DaveL says you don't support the possibility to capture BOTH an
    automated process and input from a terminologist.

    DaveL asks how critical merging the two categories is

    chriLi agrees with changes to former disambig data category,
    but suggests that we should come up with a solution to cover
    points still only in term category,

    with the view to deprecating the term data category

    Tadej believes this is possible

    DaveL asks who will be avail. for Monday call: Tadej yes,
    Marcis yes, Christian: no

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: dlewis6 to confirm dates for use case document
    publishing [recorded in

    [End of minutes]

     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [24]scribe.perl version
     1.137 ([25]CVS log)
     $Date: 2013-02-11 17:43:44 $

      [24] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [25] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Monday, 11 February 2013 17:48:37 UTC