- From: Serge Gladkoff <sgladkoff@logrus.ru>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 15:04:55 +0000
- To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>, "public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <2683F0C545BDA044B0DB00EBDE95F5F350B651E6@SRV-MAIL3.logrus.ru>
Dear Colleagues, I am sorry, I am on another call ☹, still continues; I’ll try to join if I can. Regards, Serge From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:38 PM To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org Subject: New dial in details to come (Re: [Minutes] Prague f2f (draft) and Monday call) Hi all, as it seems I really can't be on the call, apologies. Arle will provide new dial in details later. Please join http//irc.w3.org , channel #mlw-lt, to make sure that you have the latest dial in info. Best, Felix Am 27.01.13 20:58, schrieb Felix Sasaki: Hi all, minutes of the Prague f2f are at http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html and below as text (search for "DAY1" and "DAY2" in this mail). During the Monday call we will go through the minutes / issues step by step, just to give people (esp. who have not been at the meeting) an opportunity to say whether they have additional comments on resolutions and open issues. I very likely can't be on the call, but please do the boring review of issues and use the call to bring your opinion to the table - better now than later :) Issues that need a follow up & discussion in the group are: - regex for allowed characters https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/67 https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/105 thanks a lot to Shaun for the regex review; now waiting for the "regex subset validation" regex. - NIF comments https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/72 - disambiguation vs. terminology https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/67 - ruby and directionality related comments, see issues mentioned at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0144.html For others a lot of action items and edits need to be done, but before that has happened there is nothing to review for the group. The main aim of the call should be to find out - does the group think that we have missed issues? - do you agree with all resolutions achieved at the f2f? - do you have opinions on above open issues? Best, Felix ===== DAY1 ===== [1]W3C [1] http://www.w3.org/ - DRAFT - MLW-LT f2f 23 Jan 2013 [2]Agenda [2] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/PragueJan2013f2f#Agenda See also: [3]IRC log [3] http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-irc Attendees Present Yves, Marcis, leroy, Ankit, Arle, dave, pnietoca, mdelolmo, Karl, swalter, dF, truedesheim, felix, milan, christan(remote 10-11), tadej, jirka, Pedro (remote 2-3 p.m.) Regrets Chair felix Scribe fsasaki, daveL, Yves, Arle Contents * [4]Topics 1. [5]roll call 2. [6]http://tinyurl.com/its20-comments-handling 3. [7]issue-67 4. [8]issue-69 5. [9]issue-70 6. [10]issue-71 7. [11]ISSUE-72 NIF comment 8. [12]issue-68 9. [13]issue-75 10. [14]issue-73 11. [15]issue-74 12. [16]issue-72 13. [17]issue-76 14. [18]issue-77 15. [19]issue-76 again 16. [20]issue-78 17. [21]issue-79 18. [22]issue-80 19. [23]issue-81 20. [24]issue-82 21. [25]case related comments 22. [26]ISSUE-84 23. [27]ISSUE-86 24. [28]meeting schedule 25. [29]Last workshop 26. [30]posters 27. [31]Issues 28. [32]issue-88 29. [33]issue-92 30. [34]Issue-93 31. [35]Issue-94 32. [36]issue-95 33. [37]issue-98 34. [38]issue-100 35. [39]issue-104 36. [40]issue-106 and issue-107 37. [41]issue-108 and issue-109 38. [42]locale filtering question 39. [43]test suite check 40. [44]RFC statements 41. [45]test suite 42. [46]requirements doc * [47]Summary of Action Items __________________________________________________________ roll call <fsasaki> checking attendance ... [48]http://tinyurl.com/its20-comments-handling [48] http://tinyurl.com/its20-comments-handling <fsasaki> [49]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Pra gueJan2013f2f#Agenda [49] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/PragueJan2013f2f#Agenda <daveL> scribe daveL issue-67 <daveL> yves: had no feedback from shaun to date so we probably can't advance here <fsasaki> related: [50]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/i ssues/105 [50] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/105 <daveL> felix: comment could be addressed by dropping the ref to XML schema <daveL> yves: will respond on issue 105 issue-69 <fsasaki> related: [51]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/i ssues/69 [51] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/69 <pnietoca> External rules may also have links to other external rules (see example 20). The linking mechanism is recursive, and subsequently after the processing the rules MUST be read top-down (see example 21). <fsasaki> [52]http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#link-external- rules [52] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#link-external-rules <daveL> pablo: had responded that this was clear in the specification, but suggest a clarification <pnietoca> the section is 5.4. (last paragraph) <daveL> felix: confirms this is just a clarification <pnietoca> change it <fsasaki> "The linking mechanism is recursive" > "The linking mechanism is recursive in a depth-first approach" <daveL> tadej: perhaps explain this recursion as being 'depth first' to be understandable more by computer scientists issue-70 <fsasaki> related: [53]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/i ssues/70 [53] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/70 <daveL> felix: ref to section 5.5 <fsasaki> [54]http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#selection-prec edence [54] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#selection-precedence <fsasaki> will add one entry between "global selections" and "data category defaults" for inherited information, but not specific to local markup issue-71 <fsasaki> related: [55]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/i ssues/71 [55] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/71 <fsasaki> annotatorsRef <fsasaki> scribe: fsasaki daveL: Yves said the problem is: you can have a lot of annotatorRefs ... issue is: how to deal with annotatorRefs with two instances of local standoff markup ... e.g. lq localization issues and provenacne records ... so you can have multiple records of the same data category applying to the same selection ... you don't get the information whether the information comes from different processes ... Yves suggested whether we can put the information into the same ... ... my view was: for provenacne annotator ref is not that important ... so in the mail last night: could we exlude the lqi and provenance from annotatorsRef ... annotatorRefs is telling you what provided the provenacne annotation tadej: from provenance it is not needed, but for lqi? dave: don't think so for lqissue. yves: sounds weird: have annotatorsRef mandatory for some data cats, possible for others, forbidden for two ... ... currently it is required for mt-confidence and disambiguation <Marcis> ... and Terminology yves: otehr solution: you could have it mandatory for these two data categories, and don't have it for others ... that would make things a lot simpler dave: agree - not having two features interacting (standoff and annotatorsRef) would be good felix potential resolution - so keep it mandatory for mt-confidence, disambiguation and term, and edit the list of data category items in the spec <scribe> scribe: daveL <fsasaki> ACTION: dLewis6 to come back to chase and kevin about discussion of issue-71 [56]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-irc#T08-34-49 recorded in [57]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action01] [56] http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-irc#T08-34-49 <trackbot> Created ACTION-388 - Come back to chase and kevin about discussion of issue-71 [58]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-irc#T08-34-49 on David Lewis - due 2013-01-30]. [58] http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-irc#T08-34-49 <fsasaki> ACTION: felix to change example [59]http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#EX-its-tool-an notation-1 if the agree on issue-71 , see discussion at [60]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-irc#T08-34-49 recorded in [61]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action02] [59] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#EX-its-tool-annotation-1 [60] http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-irc#T08-34-49 <trackbot> Created ACTION-389 - Change example [62]http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#EX-its-tool-an notation-1 if the agree on issue-71 , see discussion at [63]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-irc#T08-34-49 on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-01-30]. [62] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#EX-its-tool-annotation-1 [63] http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-irc#T08-34-49 felix: example 28 needs to be revised also, will do this now <fsasaki> scribe: fsasaki daveL: using the example in the test file - should we have usage of the data categories in the elements? yves: yes <daveL> dave: this example doesn't actually include the data category attributes to which the annotatorRef refers <daveL> felix: makes note that the test file and the example should be revised to include this yves: we don't have annotatorsRef for all disambiguation examples <daveL> yves: we don't have annotatorRef in all examples of disambiguation <scribe> ACTION: tadej to check disambiguation examples with regards to presence of annotatorsRef [recorded in [64]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action03] <trackbot> Created ACTION-390 - Check disambiguation examples with regards to presence of annotatorsRef [on Tadej Štajner - due 2013-01-30]. ISSUE-72 NIF comment <daveL> felix: comment was which version of NIF do we refer to [65]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb- lt-comments/2013Jan/0015.html [65] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0015.html <daveL> .. there are 1.0 and 2.0 <daveL> .. also there stabilit was raises <daveL> ... and Christian also raised whether the mapping was canonical <daveL> dF: it may be a useful clarification for implementators <daveL> felix: but its not clear what is meant by 'canonical XML' in this case <daveL> tadej: it implied there should be a canonical XML serialisation <daveL> felix: would such a requirement raise a bar for implementors, this need to be dicussed further on the lists <daveL> felix: now will attempt to dial in Christian issue-68 <scribe> scribe: fsasaki marcis: there was a discussion on ITS term and disambiguation ... christian brought it up, various comments from the WG ... david suggested that we should not break ITS1.0, but felix said it is not necessary to have it <daveL> marcis: summarises discussion <daveL> [66]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb- lt-comments/2013Jan/0152.html [66] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0152.html daveF: don't break it if it works ... that's the bottom line ... we want to keep also independence of features marcis: I could implement terminology independent of the rest of disambiugation ... the question is: if we agree to change something, it is independent, so different question ... david suggested to have a bp document that specifies how things relate daveF: there are seperate use cases for disambiguation and terminology ... things are backed by different use cases, also from the implementers point of view felix: we can also depcreate one of these tadej: if we want to annotate the same fragment - which one to choose? marcis: that is the biggest problem ... we cannot do both ... there was a comment from yves, we should break larger problems into smaller ones ... so even if we have an "upper level" data category which we could then use for both scenarios tadej: we could use the same trip we did with annotators ref, e.g. using multiple values in the same attribute ... not sure if we would encourage people to do this ... complex, but same level of complexity as ... ... another solution tadej suggested was to have many attributes , but that's the same as having everything in one attribute ... if we can come up with a closed set of types of annotation, that's a solution ... but that needs to be a closed set, since we are specifying attributes ... right now for disambiguation we agreed for three levels: concept, entity, lexicon marcis: there is no definition for each of these levels, e.g. what is a lexical concept? ... I saw that there is a terminology inconcistency ... terminology is not used always in the same way in the disambiguation description daveL: the issue in using both of them for the same term - we are not clear how to combine them? tadej: it is not an issue at the moment ... if you fold it in one data category, it becomes a problem <chriLi> queue daveF: a big system will have a terminology life cycle with many manual people, but it is an automatic workflow daveL: aim of disambiguation is that it would make the output of automatic annotation available christian: thanks to marcis for putting everything into a condensed form ... there are we with the discussion today: my understanding is the following: ... people think it is not a bad idea to try to come up with a data category that can subsume what ITS2 terminology and ITS2 disambiguation try to cover ... with respect to paying attention to ITS1: situation is that there is no need to go for backwards compatibility ... one way to achieve soft transition would be to deprecate existing ITS term ... one way to come up with the upper level data category: two implementation suggestions were made: based on attrbiute values and distinct values for annotation types ... this is how I understand the current state of the discussion ... I'm wondering what the next step would be ... to say: we realize that we want to really look into this change ... and want to do something to the current draft ... if this wants to be driven it could be done via mail or a seperate call ... need to agree on the approach <daveL> scrie: daveL <daveL> scribe: daveL felix: we have agreement that backward compatability isn't an absolute barrier ... but it is in my view desirable Christian: fully agree felix: another point is trying in general to reduce level of substantive change ... another point is experience of people who implement and knwo users of its1.0 terminology ... such as yves and OKAPI community yves: not necessarily a big problem to change but would like to keep backward compatibility in general tadej: suggested changes would break backward compatibility macis: potetnially we add complexity to terminology by including link to external ontology or other lexical resource df: agrees felix: compromise is having an umbrella data category, and allow term to stay the same <fsasaki> arle: agree with marcis marcis: have some questionns about the definition of disambiguation, e.g. the meaning of what is a lexical concept christian: support having an umbrella data category that would not increase complexity of seaprate term and disambiguation use case ... also we will get better uptake if we can offer an easier route to marking up the output of text analysis ... rather than having to support the more complex issues in disambiguation tadej: the reason for defining granularities was the major requirements of linguists, it was not sufficient to have this all in the target external data structure ... so even granularity definition was a compromise arle: the term 'granularity' may also be an issue tadej: was previously 'disambiguation type', but it was difficult to find the right term felxi: asks tadej, marcis, christan to come up with a proposal that allows for both use cases and consider backward comatibility for term? ... but this would need to be done by the end of next week? <Arle> Without putting too much thought into it, would disambiguationClassType work? Would this always correspond to a description of the kind of disambiguationClass intended? christian: happy to let marcis and tadej to try and draft something over these two days and then I can dial in again to discuss it further marcis: asks who was originator of disambig tadej: originally it was a named entity recoginiser category, but after discussion also became merged with diasambiguation afteter discussion with linguasev and others marcis: could we have a cascading model, since named entity can be composite <chriLi> Don't forget to bring the beer bottles to the room as well :-) daveL: note this overlaps with issue-109 on disambiguation in indic languages issue-75 <fsasaki> [67]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb- lt-comments/2013Jan/0143.html [67] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0143.html felix: jorge as shepard has produced a summary of this topic christian: my domain comment had three parts ... one main point - was looking for a way for providing to meta-data on a domain without pointing to resource, this has no eyyt been resolved ... another point was that domain meta-data is processor specific ... so in one world it is called x then the context in which x is meaningful needs to be provided <fsasaki> [68]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb- lt-comments/2013Jan/0136.html [68] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0136.html christian: now jorge has resolved point 2b, but the baove has still also to be resolved felix: felt adding this context meta was a new feature but could be reolved with a note that this relates to a single engine use case <fsasaki> [69]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/p roducts/9 [69] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/products/9 christian; broadly agrees such a note would satisfy him, since in ITS the focus was on scenarios with a single engine scenario. But this need to be made clear as an assumption in ITS2.0 felix: have now started collacting items on tracker categories as 'not addressed in ITS2.0' issue-73 felix: so if larger implementors, e.g. sap, adobe, ms, will but resoruces into the multiengine scenario we could consider it, other we should stick with making explicit the single engine context <fsasaki> [70]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb- lt-comments/2013Jan/0015.html [70] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0015.html felix: with NIF the stability is an issue and will refer back to sebastian Helleman about the plan for this ... need this information to react fully to this comment ... other comment was how the mapping could benefit from canonical definiition of mapping ... so my comment is whether this would be of use to implementors, since in the room there was a lot of familiarisation with the use and benefits of canonicalisation christian: asks do we have more than one implementation felix: confirms we have one from sebastian and one from felix christian: I brought this up to ensure that whenever NIF processing is ensured, we end up with the same representation, and this needs normalisation and canonicalisation ... if not, then we may end up with versions that are incompatible felix: asks whether some comparison between document in NIF is an likely use case. would the comparison not takeplace back in the document itself christian: I think you would need a unicode normalisation felix: but this was related to regex in another data category christian: if we are reocmmending normalisation anyway in this other data category, could we not use this to solve the problem here issue-74 <fsasaki> scribe: fsasaki daveL: christian provided some bullet point comments ... are you planning more re-writing ... or should david and I take your comments in? christian: if it would be ok with you ... I could turn the bullet points that people could read ... with respect with the general approach ... I could do editing of the doc ... by mid next week [71]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/a ctions/377 [71] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/377 that would be action-377 davidF: that's clarificatory stutt, not very urgent ... will wait for christian for a more readable version felix: so we have discusesed all comments from christian felix wil put thoughts on NIF in a mail <scribe> scribe: Yves_ <scribe> Scribe: Yves_ issue-72 <fsasaki> original comment here [72]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb- lt-comments/2013Jan/0013.html [72] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0013.html <fsasaki> .. see "Section 8.12 (Provenance Data Category)" daveL: Provenance issue is about timestamp ... quite complex to implement ... e.g when the information is capture, etc. ... This is covered by the PROV standard ... and we have a mechanism to point to that ... so no need in ITS <fsasaki> yves: so has the order of provenance a meaning? daveL: so order SHOULD reflect the order things were added in the document original commentor got a reply and we are waiting for a response. comment was rejected. issue-76 Arle: need to re-look at it issue-77 Jirka: proposal for a solution is in the issue's note. ... question was about HTML and rules precedence Jirka: no need to change anything ... link is the same as link in global rules <fsasaki> resolution proposal - see note from jirka Kosek, 22 Jan 2013, 22:58:35 at [73]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/is sues/77 [73] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/77 Marcis: my comment was that it was difficult to understand how things work ... because it's defined in multiple places felix: in section 6.4 there are some explanation ... we would add Jirka's clarification there ... this would define the inheritance behavior jirka: maybe issue is that global rules need to be read in document order <fsasaki> "Global selections in documents (using mechanism of external global rules or inline global rules)" > "Global selections in documents (using mechanism of external global rules or inline global rules), to be processed in document order" <fsasaki> "Global selections in documents (using mechanism of external global rules or inline global rules)" > "Global selections in documents (using mechanism of external global rules or inline global rules), to be processed in document order, see section 5.2.1 for details " Felix: could point to 5.2.1 in the HTML section ... let's close this issue. See the note in the issue page. <fsasaki> ACTION: jirka to make edit for issue-77 [recorded in [74]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action04] <trackbot> Created ACTION-391 - Make edit for issue-77 [on Jirka Kosek - due 2013-01-30]. issue-76 again Arle: an implementer was looking at issue's type ... and saw inconsistency <fsasaki> original comment at [75]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb- lt-comments/2013Jan/0026.html [75] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0026.html Arle: solution would be to change the definition ... add "or text is translated inconsistently" ... and a second example. <Arle> Proposed change: The text is inconsistent within itself or text is translated inconsistently (NB: not for use with terminology inconsistency). <Arle> Add second example: The translated text uses different wording for a single regulatory notice in the source that occurs multiple times in a series of manuals. <fsasaki> change in this sec [76]http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#lqissue-typeva lues [76] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#lqissue-typevalues <scribe> ACTION: arle to make the edit for issue 76 [recorded in [77]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action05] <trackbot> Created ACTION-392 - Make the edit for issue 76 [on Arle Lommel - due 2013-01-30]. issue-78 Felix: rel-type was registered, no more action is needed. Felix: wrote a reply to that comment issue-79 <fsasaki> [78]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb- lt-comments/2013Jan/0145.html [78] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0145.html Felix: added text indicating namespace prefix can be difference than its if it exists already Jirka: this just duplicate information. not good ... the initial text should already address the comment <fsasaki> "The namespace URI that MUST be used by implementations of this specification is:" > "The namespace URI that MUST be used by XML-based implementations of this specification is:" Jirka: add only "XML-based" to implementation <fsasaki> ACTION: felix to go back to richard about new resolution for issue-79 [recorded in [79]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action06] <trackbot> Created ACTION-393 - Go back to richard about new resolution for issue-79 [on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-01-30]. issue-80 Felix: we can just add links to example <scribe> ACTION: felix to add links to examples for issue 80 [recorded in [80]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action07] <trackbot> Created ACTION-394 - Add links to examples for issue 80 [on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-01-30]. issue-81 <fsasaki> [81]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb- lt-comments/2013Jan/0071.html [81] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0071.html felix: related to issue-89 <fsasaki> [82]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb- lt-comments/2013Jan/0066.html [82] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0066.html Felix: issue is not clear how HTML maps to ITS ... some HTML construct are explicitely mapped, other are not ... like terminology (dfn, dt, etc.) ... should an implementer of HTML/ITS process those constructs as term? or not? <fsasaki> [83]http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-xml-i18n-bp-20080213/ [83] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-xml-i18n-bp-20080213/ <fsasaki> [84]http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-xml-i18n-bp-20080213/#relati ng-its-plus-xhtml [84] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-xml-i18n-bp-20080213/#relating-its-plus-xhtml Felix: Possible solution is a mapping defined in bets practice ... like we did in ITS 1.0 ... we did this only as a best practice ... e.g. we don't talk about dfn in ITS 1.0 ... for issue 81 we would not define normative relation to term ... but provide mapping in best practices document <fsasaki> [85]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb- lt-comments/2013Jan/0111.html [85] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0111.html Felix: related issue is issue-97 ... some HTML features are used but not declared as such, like 'translate' ... we should have something like "the ITS processor implementing Tranlsate MUST implement HTML5 translate attribute" See also note in issue-97 Yves: this would resolve the issue <fsasaki> "the ITS processor implementing Tranlsate MUST implement HTML5 translate attribute" > "the ITS processor implementing Translate MUST implement HTML5 translate attribute in the same was as the ITS translate attribute for XML content" dF: we have a problem ... we don't have an its-translate equivalent Yves: we map to a functionality not an attribute ... like id or lang dF: we want to say HTML5 translate is the Translate local markup Yves: maybe we can re-use same text as for lang and id <kfritsche> "The recommended way to specify language identification is to use xml:lang in XML, and lang in HTML." Felix: for language we would need to say that lang has precedence <fsasaki> "If the attribute xml:id is present or id in HTML for the selected node, the value of the xml:id attribute or id in HTML MUST take precedence over the idValue value." <fsasaki> for lang info to be adapted to mention precedence of xml:lang and lang other langRule Felix: we don't have an issue for lang ... we would also need test cases ... if there are xml;lang and lang present, lang MUST take precedence ... we need a test case for it ... need to test xml:lang lang in a XHTML file [86]http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#C_7 [86] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#C_7 <scribe> ACTION: felix to check what of lang and xml;lang takes precedence [recorded in [87]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action08] <trackbot> Created ACTION-395 - Check what of lang and xml;lang takes precedence [on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-01-30]. <scribe> ACTION: ankit to create example for xml;lang / lang [recorded in [88]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action09] <trackbot> Created ACTION-396 - Create example for xml;lang / lang [on Ankit Srivastava - due 2013-01-30]. Yves: xml;lang seems to take precedence according: [89]http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#C_7 [89] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#C_7 <swalter> In HTML 5 the native HTML 5 translate attribute MUST be used to express the Translate data category. <fsasaki> issue-97 proposal <scribe> ACTION: yves to enter the new text for 97 (above) [recorded in [90]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action10] <trackbot> Created ACTION-397 - Enter the new text for 97 (above) [on Yves Savourel - due 2013-01-30]. dF: I would table the dfn/dt issue before Term/Disambiguation is resolved Felix: think there are 2 type of content: clear relation (like id translate) and un-clear (dfn) Marcis: dfn is very narrow ... employed only in very restricted definition ... dfn is like a sub-type of ITS term Tadej: dt is only in a list karlF: adding a default rule would be better ... simpler Marcis: but only in a BP document Felix: yes <fsasaki> [91]http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-xml-i18n-bp-20080213/#relati ng-its-plus-xhtml [91] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-xml-i18n-bp-20080213/#relating-its-plus-xhtml <scribe> ACTION: Felix to answer Richard to indicate we'll address this with a rule file in BP [recorded in [92]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action11] <trackbot> Created ACTION-398 - Answer Richard to indicate we'll address this with a rule file in BP [on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-01-30]. <scribe> ACTION: Felix to draft non-normative section clarifying relations to HTML for issue 89 [recorded in [93]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action12] <trackbot> Created ACTION-399 - Draft non-normative section clarifying relations to HTML for issue 89 [on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-01-30]. action felix to edit the specification for Translate (MUST missing, etc.) <trackbot> Created ACTION-400 - Edit the specification for Language (MUST missing, etc.) [on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-01-30]. issue-82 <fsasaki> [94]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb- lt-comments/2013Jan/0067.html [94] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0067.html Felix: if values are ok, no need to have a mapping <fsasaki> [95]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-international/2013J anMar/0048.html [95] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-international/2013JanMar/0048.html felix: something without mapping just pass through <fsasaki> answer to the comment: "STEP 3-1-2-5-2. Else (if no mapping is found): Add the string (in its original cases) to the result string." <scribe> ACTION: daveL to reply to Richard [recorded in [96]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action13] <trackbot> Created ACTION-401 - Reply to Richard [on David Lewis - due 2013-01-30]. case related comments <fsasaki> [97]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/i ssues/102 [97] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/102 <fsasaki> [98]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb- lt-comments/2013Jan/0116.html [98] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0116.html Pablo: at first we used case-sensitive ... then we moved to insensitive ... we could compare directly ... but if document is encoded differently we may have entities ... and the string is different <fsasaki> scribe: fsasaki yves: by entity you mean "person"? pablo: yes <pnietoca> <meta name="description" content="Economía"/> <pnietoca> ... domainMapping="Economía (ECON), Leyes (Law)"/> yves: but that gets resolved then you parse the documnt pablo: see example above yves: then you read the document the entity wil be converted into í ... if we just do case-sensitive we have a problem ... the reason why we want to have insensitive: to avoid duplicates ... because we know people don't regard casing for keywords anyway ... so in one case we say: case matters, in others we say they don't matter ... so one solution is: case always matters ... but what is the solution for HTML? davidF: wouldn't be worried that you preserve case ... only if you fail to map yves: only when you compare during the mapping you are uncertain ... problem is: many documents have keywords typed differently ... could also have a keyword saying "mapping or not" felix: would that delay the problem ... resolution: agree with first question in [99]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb- lt-comments/2013Jan/0116.html ... 2nd question becomes unnecessary [99] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0116.html <scribe> scribe: Yves_ action yves to fix text and algo for domain case mapping <trackbot> Created ACTION-402 - Fix text and algo for domain case mapping [on Yves Savourel - due 2013-01-30]. scribe Yves_ ISSUE-84 dF: dave split indic language issues into 3 topics ... first one is covered in issue-84 <fsasaki> reply from dave on issue-84 at [100]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb -lt-comments/2013Jan/0149.html [100] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0149.html dF: answer is: yes transliterating is different but we didn't have enough use cases for a requirement ... that made it as a final data category felix: so we are waiting for a reply now ISSUE-86 felix: implementation committement <fsasaki> [101]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb -lt-comments/2013Jan/0144.html [101] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0144.html for several issues scribe: for Ruby and Directionality ... basically we don't have experts and no volunteer to implement ... Ruby may be ported for XLIFF ... still not sure what is the aim: dropping ruby or not? ... also not sure when we can expect stability ... but we want to be feature complete very soon ... questions to the i18n are out, waiting for feedback <fsasaki> yves: directionality is not really used in XLIFF <fsasaki> .. implementers use control characters <fsasaki> .. we tried really hard in XLIFF2 <fsasaki> .. we have a module for directionality in XLIFF2 <fsasaki> .. but the implementers would insert rather control characters than markup dF: when we discussed directionality in Lyon, someone described how to do dir with inline markup felix: .. for Ruby, I don't think anyone implemented the pointer for example Arle: need to speak to Asian developers ... group is not representative ... for these issues Felix: for Japanese there is a detailed document on layout ... and requirements in XML and HTML are pushed by this doc and issues not addressed in ITS2ument ... Our question is how can we deal with it? Arle: maybe it can be defined later in a different namespace Felix: maybe, but baiscally it's the same for ITS 2. ... lunh time now <Arle> s/lunh/lunch <Arle> s/lunh/lunch/ <Arle> Scribe: Arle meeting schedule <fsasaki> [102]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ev entSchedule [102] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/EventSchedule Felix: I thought of discussing the next meetings, but Pedro isn't here. ... See the wiki page. You will see that thanks to Tadej that we have a face-to-face in Bled in May. ... I just got an email from Pedro with some offers to host the face-to-face in Madrid, but all are beyond budget (€5000), because he would have to rent meeting space. ... We might need to think of an alternative to Madrid. One alternative is LocWorld in June in London. ... We could ask Microsoft if there is a London office we could use. <fsasaki> s/Microsoft/xyz/ LocWorld is 12–14 June David: 10 June is XLIFF; 11–12 June (?) is FEISGILTT Felix: We will need technical discussions in June. Yves: Whole week is booked for some people with the different events. Felix: Week of 17th? ... Please check your calendars to see if that might work. ... 17–18 June is the suggestion. Location: TBD in a cheap place. Felix: Berlin would be free. s/Location:/.. Location/ Dave: Dublin is an option. <scribe> ACTION: Felix is to check availability of Berlin on 17–18 June. [recorded in [103]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action14] <trackbot> Created ACTION-403 - Is to check availability of Berlin on 17–18 June. [on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-01-30]. <scribe> ACTION: daveL to check availability in Dublin for face-to-face meeting on 17–18 June. [recorded in [104]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action15] <trackbot> Created ACTION-404 - Check availability in Dublin for face-to-face meeting on 17–18 June. [on David Lewis - due 2013-01-30]. Pedro: I am looking at various possibilities in Madrid still. Felix: Would it be OK for you if we look at other cities to save costs? Pedro: That is fine for me. Leave Madrid as an alternative. ... My latest option in Madrid comes to 3–3.5K€, if we have everyone stay at the same hotel. Felix: We need to fix these dates as soon as possible because of Localization World so that travel can be arranged by everyone as appropriate. ... Dave and I will try to decide so people can make arrangements. <fsasaki> [105]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ev entSchedule [105] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/EventSchedule Felix: We are also considering another face-to-face in September, around LRC conference. ... In Limerick. ... Dates would be 16–17 September (pending confirmation). ... Would 23–24 September be also good <fsasaki> will come back to september meeting tomorrow s/also good/also good?/ <fsasaki> 23-24 would be difficult for cocomore Last workshop Felix: Project ends in December. DoW shows we spend most efforts until September, so if the workshop is in December, mass may be difficult. Do we have a regular workshop, or some other kind of event? ... Any ideas of other options for final event? ... We can't drop it due to work package, which describes it as biggest workshop. Pedro: What about colocation of the final workshop with another event? ... David: What about tcworld? s/.. David:/David../ scribe: It is a big one. Might be good to connect there. <scribe> ACTION: Felix to follow up with Christian on tekom as an option. [recorded in [106]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action16] <trackbot> Created ACTION-405 - Follow up with Christian on tekom as an option. [on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-01-30]. Arle: Consider that colocating with a commercial event will likely have higher costs. Felix: We can do another MLW workshop, or look at other options. Yves: That is a lot of work. Felix: Yes, and after September, we can't ask people for a lot of work. ... Also, September/October is probably too early for the next workshop after the one in March. ... What if we don't make a conference or go to one? Instead we have an event (possibly closed) to do demos to customers? <Pedro> Pedro: Tekom, Wiesbaden 06Nov-08Nov2013 Felix: we can consider still in January. Let me and Dave know of any options that come to mind. Dave: I can already confirm space would be available in Dublin in June. posters Felix: Our reviewers will most likely not be in Rome. So we need to make a presentation in Luxembourg. Posters would help show completion. Pedro: What size should they be? Felix: A0. <scribe> ACTION: Arle to resize templates for posters from A1 to A0. [recorded in [107]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action17] <trackbot> Created ACTION-406 - Resize templates for posters from A1 to A0. [on Arle Lommel - due 2013-01-30]. Issues <daveL> scribe daveL issue-88 <fsasaki> [108]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb -lt-comments/2013Jan/0070.html [108] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0070.html <daveL> felix: this is just editorial in the directionality section <scribe> Scribe: Arle <fsasaki> s/topic: Issues// David: I don't know the difference between the HTML elements here. <scribe> ACTION: Felix to check for clarification on Issue-88 [recorded in [109]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action18] <trackbot> Created ACTION-407 - Check for clarification on Issue-88 [on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-01-30]. issue-92 <fsasaki> original mail at [110]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb -lt-comments/2013Jan/0076.html [110] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0076.html Yves: This is a note from Richard asking why information is in a note, which is not normative. ... Can a note be normative? I believe they can be if they are in a normative section. I believe we have MUSTS in notes. Felix: I think that is a mistake. <scribe> ACTION: Felix to ensure that there is no MUST in any notes. [recorded in [111]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action19] <trackbot> Created ACTION-408 - Ensure that there is no MUST in any notes. [on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-01-30]. Yves: idValue global has one. <fsasaki> relation to issue-103 - clarify the algorithm Yves: One explanation + bullet explaining that empty = no locale and * = all locales. Then we can eliminate the note. Felix: Solution is to have three bullets explaining the cases, and delete note. Resolves issue-92 and issue-103. ... Yves, do you use extended filtering? Yves: Yes. We do. We need to check with Shaun, but I believe this is the algorithm for extended filtering. Felix: We need to express the approach described in BCP47 and that it will work for everyone implementing this. Tilde should check. ... Ankit and Marcis, should we return to this, or can we assume that if we don't hear otherwise, it’s OK? <scribe> ACTION: Yves to follow up with Richard and Norbert on issue-92 and issue-103. [recorded in [112]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action20] <trackbot> Created ACTION-409 - Follow up with Richard and Norbert on issue-92 and issue-103. [on Yves Savourel - due 2013-01-30]. Issue-93 Jirka: Proposed resolution is to use what was proposed by original commenter. <scribe> ACTION: Jirka to write to Henry on issue-93 and make the change in the text. [recorded in [113]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action21] <trackbot> Created ACTION-410 - Write to Henry on issue-93 and make the change in the text. [on Jirka Kosek - due 2013-01-30]. Issue-94 Felix: I think Jirka has a proposed resolution. Jirka: I've sent replies to Henry, but not heard back. I think we should resolve this issue in a different way. See link at end of issue. ... HTML has different rules for processing white space and decimal numbers. There is different precision between XML and HTML. ... The easiest resolution is to use the double data type in XML for ITS. It will align XLM and HTML. Double is implemented in almost all programming languages. So we move all data types to double and deal with the differences in leading and trailing whitespace between the two. Felix: This impacts localization quality, MT confidence, and localization quality rating. ... Is this OK for all implementers? Jirka: Only difference is that double has lower precision than decimal. And you can use exponential notation. Felix: Also disambigConfidence and term confidence. <scribe> ACTION: Jirka to change localization quality, localization rating, mt confidence, term confidence, and disambig confidence to use double rather than decimal and respond to Henry (Issue-94) [recorded in [114]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action22] <trackbot> Created ACTION-411 - Change localization quality, localization rating, mt confidence, term confidence, and disambig confidence to use double rather than decimal and respond to Henry (Issue-94) [on Jirka Kosek - due 2013-01-30]. issue-95 <fsasaki> [115]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb -lt-comments/2013Jan/0093.html [115] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0093.html Felix: We should reject this. The proposal itself said that translatable is different than localizable (e.g., in formatting numbers and images). ... Discussion was between Norbert, Felix, Des, and Phil. ... I think addressing this would take too much time at this point. <fsasaki> another point for Dave here [116]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb -lt-comments/2013Jan/0147.html [116] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0147.html Dave: It really is out of scope for ITS. ... Translators will deal with this on their own anyway. Felix: Norbert asked if we could use ITS for localizing CLDR? I don't see that as a real use case. <scribe> ACTION: Felix to let Norbert know that action-95 is out of scope. [recorded in [117]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action23] <trackbot> Created ACTION-412 - Let Norbert know that action-95 is out of scope. [on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-01-30]. issue-98 <fsasaki> s/issue-98/issue-98 and issue-99 Milan: related to issue-99. I found that there is no way to do this. It is mentioned only for global approach to selectors and what is allowed. Chapter 1.1 should state that the local approach can be applied only to the content of the current element and any inherited nodes, per 8.1 ... For issue-99, when using selectors in ITS, how do you select attributes? Information is there, but the definition of node differs between XML and HTML, leading to confusion. I see Yves’ suggestion to remove CSS as a selector type since they can point only to elements, but I would keep it and add a note that we can only point to elements, not attributes. David: I think it makes sense to keep CSS. Felix: We don't have any implementers using selectors. Yves: Shaun is, as a prototype. Felix: I never got it to work. Yves: Norbert says for HTML people selectors may be important. ... But with no implementations, it won't happen. It's marked as endangered. Felix: We can drop "at risk" bits. ... I agree with Milan's solution, but we might drop them anyway. Jirka: suggested a path to get implementation. Felix: It would be nice. Right now we have two paths, doing testing only for XPath, but not for CSS. Jirka: Do we need tests, since they just select nodes? Felix: Maybe the test suite or elsewhere, would we have examples making use of CSS. ... If we don't have testing, W3C management may not like us saying "you can do it on your own but we haven't done it." Jirka: We need at least one selection mechanism. Testing is to verify interoperability. Felix: We need to have at least one example for standardization and users about how to use it. We have no CSS examples. Jirka: Let's have some examples, parallel to XPath examples. Felix: Can you link to libraries to convert between CSS and XPath selectors? ... Are there non-browser conversions? <scribe> ACTION: Jirka to find data on CSS and XPath selectors conversion libraries and keep CSS selectors in the spec. [recorded in [118]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action24] <trackbot> Created ACTION-413 - Find data on CSS and XPath selectors conversion libraries and keep CSS selectors in the spec. [on Jirka Kosek - due 2013-01-30]. issue-100 <fsasaki> [119]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb -lt-comments/2013Jan/0126.html [119] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0126.html Felix: Yves proposed a resolution. <scribe> ACTION: Felix to make edit for issue-100 and get back to Norbert. [recorded in [120]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action25] <trackbot> Created ACTION-414 - Make edit for issue-100 and get back to Norbert. [on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-01-30]. issue-104 <scribe> ACTION: Felix to update unicode reference for issue-104 [recorded in [121]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action26] <trackbot> Created ACTION-415 - Update unicode reference for issue-104 [on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-01-30]. issue-106 and issue-107 <fsasaki> 106 see [122]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb -lt-comments/2013Jan/0121.html [122] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0121.html <fsasaki> s/106/107/ Karl: Norbert asked some questions and we weren't sure how to resolve them. It isn't up to the spec. The implementation must support UTF-8, but that is up to the implementer. It is best practice, especially for storage size. But we don't think it has to be mandatory for all implementations. <fsasaki> 106 see [123]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb -lt-comments/2013Jan/0120.html [123] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0120.html Karl: Other question was how to handle encoding when the implementation doesn't support it. Again, this is not up to the spec. We can define best practice, but it doesn't need to be stated in the spec. Stephan: Perhaps we have an explanation about what storage size is used for. The question is about when it is used to markup text in the source language. It is informational, but not up to the spec to tell us what to do if a tool doesn't support an encoding or if user text cannot be represented in a given encoding. Karl: We should add a sentence to storage size, per the note on the issue-107. Felix: on issue-106 and issue-107 we do nothing, just let Norbert know the rationale. <scribe> ACTION: Karl to propose solution to Norbert and then Felix can add to spec. [recorded in [124]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action27] <trackbot> Created ACTION-416 - Propose solution to Norbert and then Felix can add to spec. [on Karl Fritsche - due 2013-01-30]. Felix: When we go back to Norbert, talk about what we did in the group to show there is consensus. issue-108 and issue-109 Felix: Both relate to Indic requirements. Dave: They make a point that there is dependency on context (e.g., part of speech) that influences how you translate things. They want PoS in localizationNote and provided an annex of possible annotations. ... Adding a data type specifically for this would be a big change. You see companies when they want to add their own metadata use localizationNote with name:value pairs. It could be best practice outside the spec. <daveL> [125]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb -lt-comments/2013Jan/0154.html [125] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0154.html <fsasaki> reply from Dave on locNote its2 req , see above mail Dave: I pointed them to other relevant resources, like NIF. Arle: This would be too complex for us to solve this problem. Anything that works for Europe may fall apart elsewhere. ... I don't think we could solve this in a reasonable time frame without too much controversy. Tadej: they have PoS taggers in MT already, but it is specialized. This would be scope creep. Marcis: Once you add PoS, you have to add syntax, etc.… Dave: Do humans need PoS tagging? I don't know. Marcis: Wouldn't this be duplicating existing work in text analysis. <scribe> ACTION: DaveL to go back to Somnath on issue-108 to explain why we won't address it. [recorded in [126]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action28] <trackbot> Created ACTION-417 - Go back to Somnath on issue-108 to explain why we won't address it. [on David Lewis - due 2013-01-30]. Dave: issue-109 falls out of my expertise. It deals with nested output from NER. Tadej: I didn't quite follow the requirements. It seems they want to show that parts of entities may be entities. I don't know if they need this or are showing what they might do with this. ... Regardless of this, the comment that hierarchy is needed. Dave: We can't do this. Tadej: Overriding makes that the case, but if we allowed multiple values, we could. Dave: But you need to show that the different parts are bound together. Tadej: If you allow multiple values (e.g., something can belong to two entities), then the scope can be ambiguous. Marcis: But there should be no ambiguous overlaps in a hierarchy. Stephan: When would you actually use the knowledge that you have nested named entities? Tadej: Can we make the restriction that entities are contiguous? Dave: That would be reasonable. ... The solution isn't straight-foward. This would be a new feature. I think we should respond in that way. s/Dave: The solution/.. The solution/ Discussion about whether hierarchy is needed and produced. Dave: You could also point to a NIF record with that structure in it. Tadej: If several disambiguationRefs address something, we can't tell which one produced what. ... If a single node can have multiple values it makes tracking hard. We use stand-off for this. ... This multiple granularity might break things. <scribe> ACTION: Dave to respond to Somnath on issue-109 to explain we are looking at it to make recommendations. [recorded in [127]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action29] <trackbot> Error finding 'Dave'. You can review and register nicknames at <[128]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/ users>. [128] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/users%3E. <scribe> ACTION: DaveL to respond to Somnath on issue-109 to explain we are looking at it to make recommendations. [recorded in [129]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action30] <trackbot> Created ACTION-418 - Respond to Somnath on issue-109 to explain we are looking at it to make recommendations. [on David Lewis - due 2013-01-30]. locale filtering question <fsasaki> marcis: in content is "de" <fsasaki> .. in the localeFilter it would be de-de <fsasaki> felix: not matched test suite check Felix: We don't have a lot of coverage (38%) and most of that is thanks to Yves and Fredryk (ENLASO). ... At the end of January we have the deadline to run all test cases. Is that deadline (next week) realistic? We have some changes, but others are stable. Leroy: The files will remain the same, with changes after the 21st. Karl: our cases are theoretically all working, but we have some issues with sorting of attributes, which we don't do. That's the only reason we aren't complete. ... In the input attributes are source and alt. We output them in that order, but the output sorts them. Leroy: I can run my sorting function on output for you. Stephan: Actually, it is backward, the source is in order, the output isn't. Yves: Many engines do not care about order. You have to handle sorting yourselves. Karl: It's not a big change and then we are done. I will make the change myself. Ankit: We have a few small snags. Linguaserve: (Some issues. ???) Thomas: We are working on our implementations, should be ready next week. David: Connection between Moravia and UL tests… Felix: David, I know you use Okapi wrapper. When that is integrated in the workflow, you can run the same tests as Okapi. So now you run six cases, but you could run more then. RFC statements <fsasaki> [130]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ow nership_of_rfc2119_statements [130] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ownership_of_rfc2119_statements Felix: Much is covered by the schema. ... #25 talks about the content of the annotatorsRef attribute. Currently the data type is text. There is a need for test case with a file with a non-allowed identifier and the parser says it is wrong. That would test it, even though it does not produce specified output. ... David, could you make a test case and get the implementers to run it? ... See example below: <fsasaki> annotatorsRef="mt-confidence|tool1" <fsasaki> annotatorsRef="mtconfidence|tool1" Felix: Second line should throw an error. Yves: Do we have standard output for the errors? Felix: No. This will require human verification. ... We can address issues here until October. ... After XML Prague would be fine. Jirka: We can do this using Schematron with regex. Karl: There are similar cases in the docs to do negative tests. Jirka: It's already there, but you have to look at the Schematron, not the XSD. ... Doing as much as possible in Schematron. Felix: What about #39, #35, #41? ... If not checked by Schematron, please add later. <fsasaki> ACTION: jirka to make schematron tests described at [131]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ow nership_of_rfc2119_statements#Purpose [recorded in [132]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action31] [131] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ownership_of_rfc2119_statements#Purpose <trackbot> Created ACTION-419 - Make schematron tests described at [133]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ow nership_of_rfc2119_statements#Purpose [on Jirka Kosek - due 2013-01-30]. [133] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ownership_of_rfc2119_statements#Purpose Felix: #31, if values have spaces, must be delimited with quotation marks. Need a test case? Yves: It's already covered by the test cases, which fail if the output isn't formatted properly. Felix: #36. Overriding means these won't be combined anyway. Maybe make an action to delete the sentence in 8.11.2? Action-420 Refers Issue-111 <fsasaki> ACTION: felix to make edit for issue-111 [recorded in [134]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action32] <trackbot> Created ACTION-420 - Make edit for issue-111 [on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-01-30]. Felix: #36 is dropped. <fsasaki> " If the type of the issue is set to uncategorized, a comment MUST be specified as well." - can be checked, an error if no comment is avaiable Felix: Maybe we put the other MUST statement (about mapping internal types to issue type values) as its own test type. To catch the error, you must be able to parse the category. ... You need to understand the values and different types or markup. It is on top of the normal test suite functionality. Yves: We don't need the MUST there. The value column covers the same thing. Discussion about where to test. test suite <fsasaki> s/topic: test suite// <fsasaki> "The set of characters that are allowed is specified using a regular expression. That is, each character in the selected content MUST be included in the set specified by the regular expression." <fsasaki> this is not a test for the processor, but for the consuming application <fsasaki> for IANA charset names see [135]http://www.iana.org/assignments/character-sets/character-s ets.xml [135] http://www.iana.org/assignments/character-sets/character-sets.xml <fsasaki> we point to the IANA list, that's it <fsasaki> relevant for this MUST statement: "A storageEncoding attribute. It contains the name of the character set encoding used to calculate the number of bytes of the selected text. The name MUST be one of the names or aliases listed in the IANA Character Sets registry . The default value is UTF-8." Felix: For many quality issue type items, change MUST/MUST NOT to must/must not. ... Numbers 45–48 <fsasaki> "See entries 45-48 at [136]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ow nership_of_rfc2119_statements#Purpose these statements are not verifable. Proposal is to set MUST and MUST NOT to lower case to make clear that the text is just guidance." [136] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ownership_of_rfc2119_statements#Purpose <fsasaki> for 45 " The values a tool implementing the data category produces for the attribute MUST match one of the values provided in this table and MUST be semantically accurate.": re-formulate this : <fsasaki> drop "MUST be semantically accurate". "If a tool can map its internal values to these types it MUST do so and MUST NOT use the value other, which is reserved strictly for values that cannot be mapped to these values." -> "Note that the other category is reserved for cases where a tool-specific category cannot be mapped…" <fsasaki> ACTION: arle to work on statements 45-48 at [137]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ow nership_of_rfc2119_statements#Purpose , see prague f2f minutes [recorded in [138]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action33] [137] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ownership_of_rfc2119_statements#Purpose <trackbot> Created ACTION-421 - Work on statements 45-48 at [139]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ow nership_of_rfc2119_statements#Purpose , see prague f2f minutes [on Arle Lommel - due 2013-01-30]. [139] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ownership_of_rfc2119_statements#Purpose Yves pointed out that the values should be done by class, not on an individual error basis independent of classes. #48. If a system has an "miscellaneous" or "other" category, it MUST be mapped to this value even if the specific instance of the issue might be mapped to another category -> append note on semantic accuracy here. requirements doc <fsasaki> multi-engine domain scenario + multi engine domain scenario <fsasaki> issue-95 and issue-75 would be covered by this <fsasaki> [140]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Re quirements#autoLanguageProcessingRule [140] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements#autoLanguageProcessingRule <fsasaki> [141]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Re quirements#Process [141] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements#Process <fsasaki> [142]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Re quirements#formatType [142] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements#formatType <fsasaki> [143]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Re quirements#genre [143] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements#genre <fsasaki> [144]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Re quirements#purpose [144] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements#purpose <fsasaki> [145]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Re quirements#translatorQualification [145] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements#translatorQualification <fsasaki> [146]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Re quirements#register [146] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements#register <fsasaki> [147]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Re quirements#contentLicensingTerms [147] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements#contentLicensingTerms <fsasaki> [148]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Re quirements#author [148] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements#author <fsasaki> (covered by dc.terms <fsasaki> [149]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Re quirements#confidentiality [149] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements#confidentiality <fsasaki> [150]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Re quirements#context [150] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements#context <fsasaki> [151]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Re quirements#languageResource [151] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements#languageResource <swalter> for 45: Note that the other category is reserved... -> Note that the "other" category is reserved to cases where a tool-specific category cannot be mapped to any of the first categories in a semantically accurate manner. Summary of Action Items [NEW] ACTION: ankit to create example for xml;lang / lang [recorded in [152]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action09] [NEW] ACTION: arle to make the edit for issue 76 [recorded in [153]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action05] [NEW] ACTION: Arle to resize templates for posters from A1 to A0. [recorded in [154]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action17] [NEW] ACTION: arle to work on statements 45-48 at [155]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ow nership_of_rfc2119_statements#Purpose , see prague f2f minutes [recorded in [156]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action33] [NEW] ACTION: Dave to respond to Somnath on issue-109 to explain we are looking at it to make recommendations. [recorded in [157]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action29] [NEW] ACTION: daveL to check availability in Dublin for face-to-face meeting on 17–18 June. [recorded in [158]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action15] [NEW] ACTION: DaveL to go back to Somnath on issue-108 to explain why we won't address it. [recorded in [159]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action28] [NEW] ACTION: daveL to reply to Richard [recorded in [160]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action13] [NEW] ACTION: DaveL to respond to Somnath on issue-109 to explain we are looking at it to make recommendations. [recorded in [161]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action30] [NEW] ACTION: dLewis6 to come back to chase and kevin about discussion of issue-71 [162]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-irc#T08-34-49 [recorded in [163]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action01] [NEW] ACTION: Felix is to check availability of Berlin on 17–18 June. [recorded in [164]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action14] [NEW] ACTION: felix to add links to examples for issue 80 [recorded in [165]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action07] [NEW] ACTION: Felix to answer Richard to indicate we'll address this with a rule file in BP [recorded in [166]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action11] [NEW] ACTION: felix to change example [167]http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#EX-its-tool-a nnotation-1 if the agree on issue-71 , see discussion at [168]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-irc#T08-34-49 [recorded in [169]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action02] [NEW] ACTION: Felix to check for clarification on Issue-88 [recorded in [170]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action18] [NEW] ACTION: felix to check what of lang and xml;lang takes precedence [recorded in [171]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action08] [NEW] ACTION: Felix to draft non-normative section clarifying relations to HTML for issue 89 [recorded in [172]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action12] [NEW] ACTION: Felix to ensure that there is no MUST in any notes. [recorded in [173]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action19] [NEW] ACTION: Felix to follow up with Christian on tekom as an option. [recorded in [174]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action16] [NEW] ACTION: felix to go back to richard about new resolution for issue-79 [recorded in [175]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action06] [NEW] ACTION: Felix to let Norbert know that action-95 is out of scope. [recorded in [176]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action23] [NEW] ACTION: Felix to make edit for issue-100 and get back to Norbert. [recorded in [177]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action25] [NEW] ACTION: felix to make edit for issue-111 [recorded in [178]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action32] [NEW] ACTION: Felix to update unicode reference for issue-104 [recorded in [179]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action26] [NEW] ACTION: Jirka to change localization quality, localization rating, mt confidence, term confidence, and disambig confidence to use double rather than decimal and respond to Henry (Issue-94) [recorded in [180]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action22] [NEW] ACTION: Jirka to find data on CSS and XPath selectors conversion libraries and keep CSS selectors in the spec. [recorded in [181]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action24] [NEW] ACTION: jirka to make edit for issue-77 [recorded in [182]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action04] [NEW] ACTION: jirka to make schematron tests described at [183]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ow nership_of_rfc2119_statements#Purpose [recorded in [184]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action31] [NEW] ACTION: Jirka to write to Henry on issue-93 and make the change in the text. [recorded in [185]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action21] [NEW] ACTION: Karl to propose solution to Norbert and then Felix can add to spec. [recorded in [186]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action27] [NEW] ACTION: tadej to check disambiguation examples with regards to presence of annotatorsRef [recorded in [187]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action03] [NEW] ACTION: yves to enter the new text for 97 (above) [recorded in [188]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action10] [NEW] ACTION: Yves to follow up with Richard and Norbert on issue-92 and issue-103. [recorded in [189]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action20] [155] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ownership_of_rfc2119_statements#Purpose [162] http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-irc#T08-34-49 [167] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#EX-its-tool-annotation-1 [168] http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-irc#T08-34-49 [183] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Ownership_of_rfc2119_statements#Purpose [End of minutes] __________________________________________________________ Minutes formatted by David Booth's [190]scribe.perl version 1.137 ([191]CVS log) $Date: 2013-01-27 19:40:15 $ [190] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm> [191] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/ ===== DAY2 ===== [1]W3C [1] http://www.w3.org/ - DRAFT - mlw-lt f2f 24 Jan 2013 [2]Agenda [2] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/PragueJan2013f2f#Thursday See also: [3]IRC log [3] http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-irc Attendees Present Arle, tadej, Jirka, DaveLewis, Marcis, Ankit, leroy, Yves, mdelolmo, pnietoca, Karl, swalter, truedesheim, dF, christian(remote 11-12), felix, Milan Regrets Chair felix Scribe fsasaki, dF, daveL Contents * [4]Topics 1. [5]issue-113 2. [6]rome + xml prague prep 3. [7]disambiguation and terminology again 4. [8]action item and issue review 5. [9]BP publications 6. [10]meeting schedule 7. [11]final event ideas 8. [12]best practices 9. [13]disambiguation again * [14]Summary of Action Items __________________________________________________________ <fsasaki> [15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb- lt-comments/2013Jan/0123.html [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0123.html issue-113 <fsasaki> [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb- lt-comments/2013Jan/0123.html [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0123.html <fsasaki> ACTION: arle to do copy-edtiing on the spec - due 1 april [recorded in [17]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action01] <trackbot> Created ACTION-422 - do copy-edtiing on the spec [on Arle Lommel - due 2013-04-01]. <fsasaki> ACTION: felix to to edits for issue-113 [recorded in [18]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action02] <trackbot> Created ACTION-423 - To edits for issue-113 [on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-01-31]. <fsasaki> "Information (e.g. "translate this") captured by ITS markup (e.g. its:translate='yes') always pertains to one or more XML or HTML nodes (primarily element and attribute nodes). " <fsasaki> scribe: fsasaki <pnietoca> I found another typo <pnietoca> on section 5.8 the paragraph before example 26 <pnietoca> says: On any given node, the information provided by this mechanism is a space-separated list of the accumulated references found "it" the annotatorsRef attributes declared in the enclosing elements and sorted by data category identifiers. For each data category, the IRI part is the one of the inner-most "declarartion". <pnietoca> found "it" the annotatorsRef > it should be in <pnietoca> declarartion should be declaration <Arle> I just raised an issue for what you found: [19]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/i ssues/114 [19] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/114 <Arle> ACTION: Arle to fix section 8.9 note: "since the extra training resources does not justify the improvement in the output." -> "since the extra training resources do not justify the improvement in the output." [recorded in [20]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action03] <trackbot> Created ACTION-424 - Fix section 8.9 note: "since the extra training resources does not justify the improvement in the output." -> "since the extra training resources do not justify the improvement in the output." [on Arle Lommel - due 2013-01-31]. [21]https://github.com/finnle/ITS-2.0-Testsuite/blob/master/its 2.0/inputdata/domain/html/domain1htmlrules.xml [21] https://github.com/finnle/ITS-2.0-Testsuite/blob/master/its2.0/inputdata/domain/html/domain1htmlrules.xml <scribe> ACTION: ankit to change test suite for domain in HTML [22]https://github.com/finnle/ITS-2.0-Testsuite/tree/master/its 2.0/inputdata/domain/html , that is have "keywords" instead of "description" in the HTML and rules files [recorded in [23]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action04] [22] https://github.com/finnle/ITS-2.0-Testsuite/tree/master/its2.0/inputdata/domain/html <trackbot> Created ACTION-425 - Change test suite for domain in HTML [24]https://github.com/finnle/ITS-2.0-Testsuite/tree/master/its 2.0/inputdata/domain/html , that is have "keywords" instead of "description" in the HTML and rules files [on Ankit Srivastava - due 2013-01-31]. [24] https://github.com/finnle/ITS-2.0-Testsuite/tree/master/its2.0/inputdata/domain/html <Yves_> [25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb- lt-comments/2013Jan/0158.html [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0158.html <pnietoca> thanks Arle rome + xml prague prep [26]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-multilingualweb -lt/2013Jan/0000.html [26] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-multilingualweb-lt/2013Jan/0000.html <Arle> Arle: I will be submitting new templates for the posters. They had been A1 size, but we are going for A0. Links will be sent out soon. <scribe> ACTION: arle to create an indicator for poster relations [recorded in [27]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action05] <trackbot> Created ACTION-426 - Create an indicator for poster relations [on Arle Lommel - due 2013-01-31]. <scribe> ACTION: felix to nudge people for a first poster draft - 28 february [recorded in [28]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action06] <trackbot> Created ACTION-427 - Nudge people for a first poster draft - 28 february [on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-01-31]. disambiguation and terminology again [29]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb- lt-comments/2013Jan/0163.html [29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0163.html <scribe> scribe: fsasaki <dF> scribe: dF Tadej: showing slides ... seems there is a way that would not compromise ITS 1.0 term ... several different attributes, now with two categories ... simultaneous annotations on multiple granularity levels are not possible ... currecntly, fragment is in relationship with a URI ... but term is flag ... Scenario A ... term remains flag, but becomes a new granularity within disambiguation. Issues: ... multiple annotations still not possible Felix: clarification, this should be possible through concatenated values Tadej: Ugly but doable as an excercise.. Marcis: we discussed that Tadej: did not seem a good idea Another suggestion leading to B scribe: granularitoes make sense indepenedently ... terminology is just one level ... having a set of attributes for every level ... lots of new attributes ... BUT everything can be done simultaneously and independently ... multivalues seemed to require black magic to implement, gets ugly fast ... decided to keep cardinality at 1 Scenario B scribe: Keep terminology, drop granularity ... encode the levels stright in attributes Felix: clarification, separate data category identifier for each level? Tadej: basically, yes, oterwise we would need subcategories ... but the same pattern is always repeated, this should be good for adoption ... it would be just a refactoring job swalter: danger of semantic contradictions ... but it id not the formats issue to try and prevent this Tadej: we were trying to avoid the host of the different attributes by introducing glanurity Yves: is it a single data category, or four? Tadej: technically they are different from the modelling point of view, but they have same pattern, so can be grouped ... but they are independent in a sence and can go standalone.. Felix: What about implementation commitments? Do we enforce implementing all four, if one committs for one? tadej: all it seems, but it is not requesting too much as they really are the same mechanism <Arle> (Off topic, but poster templates are here: [30]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/223919/lt-web/RomeWorkshop/PosterT emplateA0.pptx [PowerPoint] and [31]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/223919/lt-web/RomeWorkshop/PosterT emplateA0.pdf [PDF].) [30] https://dl.dropbox.com/u/223919/lt-web/RomeWorkshop/PosterTemplateA0.pptx [31] https://dl.dropbox.com/u/223919/lt-web/RomeWorkshop/PosterTemplateA0.pdf tadej: they do not have different behaviors Felix: are Christian's concerns addressed with this? ... the starting point was wondering about the relationship between term and disambiguation <fsasaki> tadej: we would simply rename things, but not break the model of term <fsasaki> felix: how does scneario b relate to terminology? <fsasaki> tadej: terminolgoy already conforms to the pattern of scenario b, that is why we said we keep it as is <fsasaki> dave: we could not touch terminology at all <fsasaki> .. the use cases that we want could all be done in disambiguation <fsasaki> .. so we keep terminology but say that we can do everything now in disambiguation <fsasaki> tadej: if there is a know term, would you use termInfoRef or disambigXxxRef? <fsasaki> .. the relationships in disambiguation is in one pattern <fsasaki> .. and term already follows the pattern already <fsasaki> .. how to handle that in terms of data categories is a differetent aspect <daveL> scribe: daveL christian: core of my point related to different levels of attribute for different annotaiton, ontology, lexical etc ... confirms that the proposal related to different data categories for these different levels tadej: one exception to common pattern in entity class ref beign part of entity class christian: to be satisfied, is what do we do with the current class of terminology ... would suggest giving guidance by deprecating term through best practice advice felix: why would we deprecate the term option christian: meant depricating the current data term category felix: thing to proposal is that term is already following the pattern the proposed pattern, so it wouldn't changed tadej: suggested options are having term as a disambig option or as keep term as it is for this dave: could have both and as christian suggests give guideance on which oen to adopt of how to transation from term to term in disambiugate tadej: having both raises the issue that term could say 'yes' while disambig term option sa no, how should this be handled stephan: could be addressed at a schematron validation level felix: asks for input from implementors, but no strong perferences forthcoming tadej: note that this approach results in lots of new attribute ... also propose a catch all 'keyword' for things that don't fit into the defined categories ... some fragement of text that is important for someone christian: its good to consider support additional classes of analysis, but this isn't part of the comment to date felix: summarise, we don't have examples, spec text and commitment to implement for this proposal ... this requires some considerable effort before we are in a position to gt consensus ... asks do the proposers have time to work on this to get it mature enough to even ask on consensus Christian: allocating time for me is difficult felix: as chair we really need to see this topic advance before we can ask concensus. It really needed by next week or two. ... in order to hit a last call draft end february Christian: does this proposal address the hiearchical NER issue raised by colleagues in India tadej: this is orthogonal, so ti doesn't solve problem stephan: can we agree on name, an acronym is really useful felix: can people complete work in the time yves: sceptical that this can be done in time given the amount of time and work involved in disambig to date ... suggest that we go forward with other comments related to dismabig anyway, so these are not held up by looking at this proposal dF: this would be a definite substantive change requiring a frther last call felix: there are other that are borderline action item and issue review <fsasaki> issue-67: DECISION-DETAILS: substantive borderline change <trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-67 Change definition of regular expression for allowed characters. <fsasaki> issue-68: DECISION-DETAILS: under discussion <trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-68 Disambiguation (and term). <fsasaki> issue-71: DECISION-DETAILS: resolution to be clarified <trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-71 Section 5.8 (annotatorsRef). <fsasaki> issue-72: DECISION-DETAILS: follow-up needed <trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-72 Section 8.12 (Provenance Data Category). <fsasaki> issue-73: DECISION-DETAILS: follow-up needed <trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-73 NIF comments. <fsasaki> issue-73: DECISION-DETAILS: follow-up needed <trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-73 NIF comments. <fsasaki> issue-72: DECISION-DETAILS: clarification <trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-72 Section 8.12 (Provenance Data Category). <fsasaki> issue-102: DECISION-DETAILS: borderline substantive <trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-102 I18N-ISSUE-242: Clarify case-insensitive match for domains [ITS-20]. <fsasaki> issue-110: DECISION-DETAILS: borderline substantive <trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-110 change to langRule: precedence of xml:lang and lang. <fsasaki> close action-36 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-36 Ongoing social media outreach of mlw. <fsasaki> action-215? <trackbot> ACTION-215 -- David Filip to generate a sample of testing involving XLIFF -- due 2013-02-04 -- OPEN <trackbot> [32]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/ac tions/215 [32] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/215 <fsasaki> close action-309 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-309 pick up disambiguation granuliartiy best practices topic later. <fsasaki> covered by ongoing disambig+term discussion <fsasaki> close actoin-342 <fsasaki> close action-342 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-342 create mt confidence score example as described in [33]http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-mlw-lt-irc#T14-50-33. [33] http://www.w3.org/2012/11/29-mlw-lt-irc#T14-50-33. <fsasaki> above not needed anymore <fsasaki> close action-352 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-352 Prepare status report on Task 5.1. <fsasaki> close action-353 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-353 Prepare status report on Task 5.2. <fsasaki> close action-354 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-354 provide input about wp1. <fsasaki> above done or tracked by felix <fsasaki> close action-374 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-374 Distribute action items to define these tests and to provide guideance of how to formulate these tests against rcf2119 table. <fsasaki> close action-376 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-376 Pull this material on best practice together onto wiki for people to comment on. <fsasaki> not needed for BP work now, covered with new tracker product [34]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/p roducts/9 [34] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/products/9 <fsasaki> close action-384 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-384 Make agenda proposal for Prague meeting about the XML prague day. <fsasaki> close action-386 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-386 Contact original commenter and see whether Yves additions to comment are what was meant there. <fsasaki> above done <fsasaki> close action-387 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-387 Contact original commenter about real need of timestamp. <fsasaki> above done <fsasaki> close action-388 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-388 Come back to chase and kevin about discussion of issue-71 [35]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-irc#T08-34-49. [35] http://www.w3.org/2013/01/23-mlw-lt-irc#T08-34-49. <fsasaki> above done <fsasaki> close action-402 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-402 Fix text and algo for domain case mapping. <fsasaki> above done, including test cases <fsasaki> close action-403 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-403 Check availability of Berlin on 17–18 June for face-to-face meeting.. <fsasaki> close action-406 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-406 Resize templates for posters from A1 to A0.. <fsasaki> close action-409 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-409 Follow up with Richard and Norbert on issue-92 and issue-103.. <fsasaki> borderline "another last call cases": issue-63, issue-67 <fsasaki> issue-71 <trackbot> ISSUE-71 -- Section 5.8 (annotatorsRef) -- open <trackbot> [36]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/is sues/71 [36] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/71 <fsasaki> issue-102 <trackbot> ISSUE-102 -- I18N-ISSUE-242: Clarify case-insensitive match for domains [ITS-20] -- open <trackbot> [37]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/is sues/102 [37] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/102 <fsasaki> issue-110 <trackbot> ISSUE-110 -- change to langRule: precedence of xml:lang and lang -- open <trackbot> [38]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/is sues/110 [38] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/110 <fsasaki> and, in addition: <fsasaki> issue-68 <trackbot> ISSUE-68 -- Disambiguation (and term) -- open <trackbot> [39]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/is sues/68 [39] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/68 <fsasaki> daveF: quite a number of borderline, so we might need another last call, let's check with the mgmt <fsasaki> felix: two unknowns: ruby and directionality related comments <fsasaki> daveF: even if we went to antother LC, I wouldn't change term and dissambiugation <fsasaki> felix: worried about implementation committments for terminology and dissambig <fsasaki> marcis: we have three for both terminology and disambiguation <fsasaki> daveF: clean solution would require 4 categories <fsasaki> marcis: and at the end it would be dropped <fsasaki> felix: I don't see consensus on how to move forward <fsasaki> .. let's see what the next weeks bring BP publications <fsasaki> discussing where to publish BP documents - TR space, via i18n WG, via ITS IG meeting schedule <fsasaki> f2f in bled and dublin confirmed <Arle> Send any presentations missing from [40]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/2012-ann ual-report/presentations.html to Arle [40] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/2012-annual-report/presentations.html <fsasaki> ACTION: felix to come back to links to implemenations - due 28 Feburary [recorded in [41]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action07] <trackbot> Created ACTION-428 - come back to links to implemenations [on Felix Sasaki - due 1970-01-01]. final event ideas <fsasaki> yves: would be difficiutl to gather same crowd we have in rome 6 months later in europe <fsasaki> .. there are events at the end of the year in the states, e.g. Uncode / locworld etc. wich we could target <fsasaki> .. so we could try to do something as a group <fsasaki> .. use that as a complement to the european outreach we will do in Rome <fsasaki> unicode conf. is 21-13 october best practices <fsasaki> [42]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/p roducts/9 [42] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/products/9 <fsasaki> [43]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/p roducts/8 [43] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/products/8 <fsasaki> xliff - ITS relation <fsasaki> disambiguation vs. term (depending on current discussion) <fsasaki> mapping to provenance - dave <fsasaki> xliff vs. ITS - dave, david, yves <fsasaki> [44]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/XLI FF_Mapping [44] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/XLIFF_Mapping <fsasaki> localization quality issue / rating related BP - arle, this summer, related to QTLaunchpad <fsasaki> how to use (populate & consume) mt-confidence and domain - ankit <fsasaki> above would include about m4loc <fsasaki> [45]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Use _cases_-_high_level_summary [45] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Use_cases_-_high_level_summary <fsasaki> how to use storage size - stephan <fsasaki> high level summary based on [46]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Use _cases_-_high_level_summary - felix [46] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Use_cases_-_high_level_summary <fsasaki> [47]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Del iverables [47] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Deliverables <fsasaki> co-ordinate EU reports [48]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Del iverables with BP documents [48] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Deliverables <fsasaki> [49]http://www.w3.org/2008/12/its-extensions [49] http://www.w3.org/2008/12/its-extensions <fsasaki> ACTION: felix to check xliff ITS mapping namespace hosting in w3c [recorded in [50]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action08] <trackbot> Created ACTION-429 - Check xliff ITS mapping namespace hosting in w3c [on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-01-31]. <fsasaki> use of term - stephan, tadej and marcis. Depends on how we proceed with term vs. disambiguation issue disambiguation again <fsasaki> tadej: need to clarify: do we need granularity at all? <fsasaki> .. if not, we don't need to merge disambiguation and terminonlogy <fsasaki> .. will ask that question on the list <fsasaki> thanks to all for the meeting, adjourned! Summary of Action Items [NEW] ACTION: ankit to change test suite for domain in HTML https://github.com/finnle/ITS-2.0-Testsuite/tree/master/its2.0/ inputdata/domain/html , that is have "keywords" instead of "description" in the HTML and rules files [recorded in [51]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action04] [NEW] ACTION: arle to create an indicator for poster relations [recorded in [52]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action05] [NEW] ACTION: arle to do copy-edtiing on the spec - due 1 april [recorded in [53]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action01] [NEW] ACTION: Arle to fix section 8.9 note: "since the extra training resources does not justify the improvement in the output." -> "since the extra training resources do not justify the improvement in the output." [recorded in [54]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action03] [NEW] ACTION: felix to check xliff ITS mapping namespace hosting in w3c [recorded in [55]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action08] [NEW] ACTION: felix to come back to links to implemenations - due 28 Feburary [recorded in [56]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action07] [NEW] ACTION: felix to nudge people for a first poster draft - 28 february [recorded in [57]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action06] [NEW] ACTION: felix to to edits for issue-113 [recorded in [58]http://www.w3.org/2013/01/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action02] [End of minutes] __________________________________________________________ Minutes formatted by David Booth's [59]scribe.perl version 1.137 ([60]CVS log) $Date: 2013-01-27 19:40:15 $ [59] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm> [60] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 28 January 2013 15:05:41 UTC