[MInutes + further info] MLW-LT call 2013-01-30

Hi all,

minutes are at
and below as text. Some further info:

- the M3 milestone for the test suite will be reached by some on Monday. 
That is OK - but if you expect even more delay, please let us know asap.

- since there is discussion about disambiguation (see below), we exclude 
this for M3.

- we moved issue-75 ("domain") forward, and Christian has now the 
related action item 
https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/434 to 
work on the note

- we moved issue-69 disambiguation vs. term forward. My understanding 
from the conclusion on the call was:
* people would agree with dropping "granularity" or "qualifier" from the 
data category
* people would agree with re-naming attributes and the data category: to 
use "tan" instead of "disambig", e.g. "tan-ident-ref" instead of 
"disambig-ident-ref". E.g. instead of

<span its-disambig-confidence="0.7" 

We would say

<span its-tan-confidence="0.7" 

* Tadej has now the action 
https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/435 to 
re-work the examples in the draft so that they use no granularity / 
qualifier anymore, and "tan" instead of "disambig". Christian will help; 
the results will go the list. Tadej / Christian: it would be great to 
have that within this week, so that we can take it up on the Monday call.
* There was no push for introducing standoff (may it be with pointers 
like in lq issue or the other way round) on the call.
* The open question to resolve issue-67 is: if we make above changes to 
disambiguation: is there still a need to change terminology, in addition 
to guidance / clarification? If you have thoughts on this please let 
people know.
* Steps needed anyway for resolving issue-67 are: re-writing the now 
"tan" section (previously "disambig"), and potentially rewriting / 
merging "Terminology". Opinions on these topics or volunteers, please 
step up.




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

                                - DRAFT -

                                MLW-LT Wg

30 Jan 2013


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Jan/0243.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2013/01/30-mlw-lt-irc


           fsasaki, Karl, DomJones, dF, leroy, Naoto, pnietoca,
           tadej, daveLewis, Ankit, Yves, omstefanov, swalter,

           arle, jörg




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Test suite update
          2. [6]Action item health check
          3. [7]Discuss domain issue
          4. [8]disambiguation vs term
          5. [9]poster draft
      * [10]Summary of Action Items

Test suite update

    <fsasaki> [11]http://tinyurl.com/its20-testsuite-dashboard

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

    fsasaki: tomorrow M3 for the Testsuite, only 45% coverage
    ... are there any problems for the implementors?

    david: should be fine till monday

    phil: two new files are added and these will be added till next


      [12] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgIk0-aoSKOadG5HQmJDT2EybWVvVC1VbnF5alN2S3c#gid=0

    <fsasaki> "31st January 2013: M3 - Test files completely run.
    To be moved forward at Prague f2f."

    pnietoca: should we finish 100% for M3?

    fsasaki: only 1 or 2 files left would be okay, but only 80%
    should be discussed

    pnietoca: 100% should be okay for linguaserve, but have to talk
    to mauricio

    <fsasaki> felix: please come back to me within this week if
    100% from your organisaiton is *not* ok

Action item health check


      [13] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/open?sort=due

    fsasaki: there are lot of overdue action items
    ... most of items are related for editing
    ... should any action item be discussed?

    dF: should the disambiguation be tested till M3?
    ... because lot of changes are expected there

    fsasaki: no need to do testing for disambiguation
    ... for the M3

Discuss domain issue


      [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0022.html


      [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0182.html

    fsasaki: would like to close this today


      [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0191.html

    fsasaki: many discussion till now
    ... are there any comments for the last proposal?

    <Yves_> looks basically fine

    fsasaki: link to showcase should be moved, because wiki will
    probably removed at some point

    chriLi: looking at the proposal right now

    olaf: suggestion could ? that be moved to best practices?

    <pnietoca> I replied this morning to this issue

      [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0192.html

    <Yves_> Just one note: "It is, however, not possible to assign"
    : it's technically 'possible' but it's not meant to be used
    that way.

    <daveL> note there's a place holder for best practice docs on
    wiki at:

    <pnietoca> Felix has a point maybe a link to the wiki is not
    the most appropriate


      [18] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Best_Practice_Documents

    fsasaki: we discussed in prague that we will write maybe more
    of one of best practices

    <omstefanov> thanks, dave, for the Best Practice Docs page

    chriLi: we are on a good way
    ... but not right there now


      [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0184.html

    chriLi: yves example should be added to the note, to show how a
    MT should handle it

    <fsasaki> "For example you have a mapping as this:" - Yves'

    <fsasaki> in above mail

    <fsasaki> ACTION: christian to make re-write of note for
    domain, taking Yves' example at
    lt-comments/2013Jan/0184.html and jörgs proposal at
    lt-comments/2013Jan/0184.html into account [recorded in

      [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0184.html
      [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0184.html

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-434 - Make re-write of note for
    domain, taking Yves' example at
    lt-comments/2013Jan/0184.html and jörgs proposal at
    lt-comments/2013Jan/0184.html into account [on Christian Lieske
    - due 2013-02-06].

      [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0184.html
      [24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0184.html

    df: its just a clarification? not a normative change?

    fsasaki: it is a clarification
    ... any further comments on this topic?

disambiguation vs term


      [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Jan/0246.html

    fsasaki: proposal how to structure the discussion


      [26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Jan/0239.html

    <fsasaki> <span its-tan-confidence="0.7"
    http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dublin> its-term="no">Dublin</span>

      [27] http://nerd.eurecom.fr/ontology#Place
      [29] http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dublin
      [30] http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dublin%3E

    fsasaki: start the discussion today, here is another proposal
    from marcis
    ... do we need standoff markup?


      [31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Jan/0246.html

    tadej: how we can merge both data categories?
    ... if we merge them, than we can handle both independently?

    fsasaki: do we really need to handle both categories
    ... there is no need for multilayer annotations, if we drop

    tadej: don't have any objection, but marcis is not on the call

    daveL: there are people who would have both categories


      [32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Jan/0248.html

    fsasaki: lot of discussion on the topic of levels, that would
    be a change for disambiguation

    tadej: that was my proposal to drop levels, which swalter

    fsasaki: this would be a huge step forward for the discussion
    to merge both categories
    ... is everyone fine with dropping the levels?

    tadej: we can add a best practice for the case that someone
    wants to point to a external resource

    dLewis: agrees

    <chriLi> Values for "qualifier": lexical, term, termCandidate,
    ontological-class, ontological-entity;

    <fsasaki> christian's inital proposal at

      [33] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0014.html

    <fsasaki> <span its-tan-confidence="0.7"

      [34] http://nerd.eurecom.fr/ontology#Place
      [35] http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dublin
      [36] http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-2275

    chriLi: with dropping level we mean dropping these values?

    fsasaki: we want to drop the complete field "qualifier"
    ... nobody really used this field in their workflow

    tadej: is there a case where people can't to this with rdfa/a
    or other methods - and this is not the case for us

    dF: is the level a important part of the multilayer topic?

    fsasaki: you can't talk about the one, without talking about
    the other one
    ... should we keep its-tan-type?

    chriLi: we should drop it

    fsasaki: some consensus today - following some examples

    <fsasaki> <span its-tan-confidence="0.7"

      [37] http://nerd.eurecom.fr/ontology#Place
      [38] http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dublin

    fsasaki: this would be example without the tan-type and level

    <chriLi> You may want to add its-tan-term="yes"

    fsasaki: we can't discuss this further because marcis is
    missing today
    ... if we only rename attributes, then we maybe don't need
    another last call
    ... this wouldn't influence the data category terminology

    <fsasaki> ACTION: tadej to take care of disambig -> tan
    examples [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-435 - Take care of disambig -> tan
    examples [on Tadej ¦tajner - due 2013-02-06].

    <omstefanov> I think we need to keep careful watch of Ma-rcis'
    comments in 0239.html warning of what happens if we merge
    terminology and disabiguation (or whatever it is called).

    fsasaki: we don't rewrite the section, till the terminology
    discussion is done
    ... marcis should be at the monday call, so the discussion will
    be continued on monday
    ... any other comments?

poster draft

    fsasaki: poster draft moved forward to 15th feb, everybody is
    okay with that?

    <omstefanov> bye and thanks, felix

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: christian to make re-write of note for domain,
    taking Yves' example at
    lt-comments/2013Jan/0184.html and jörgs proposal at
    lt-comments/2013Jan/0184.html into account [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: tadej to take care of disambig -> tan examples
    [recorded in

      [40] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0184.html
      [41] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0184.html

    [End of minutes]

     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [44]scribe.perl version
     1.137 ([45]CVS log)
     $Date: 2013-01-30 16:56:07 $

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

Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2013 17:09:03 UTC