[Minutes and ITS 2.0 progress] MLW-LT WG call 2013-07-17

Hi all,

the minutes of yesterday's call are at
http://www.w3.org/2013/07/17-mlw-lt-minutes.html
and below as text. All: since I was not on the call, if something is 
wrong (attendance, regrets, topics, ...) please let me know.

The W3C process clarification needed, see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Jun/0135.html
is now done. I will schedule another "proposed recommendation" 
transition call. The only change we did since the previous one are the 
editorial issues described at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Jul/0021.html
and I updated the editors list as discussed with the co-editors and 
David Filip. I assume that these changes will not need another proposed 
recommendation request and we can just have the transition call - stay 
tuned.

I have seen one topic that may require further changes: MT confidence 
definition, see this thread
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Jul/thread#msg22
and Yves' mail on the IRC log from Dave
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2013Jul/0062.html
Yves is asking for a change to say that the "MT confidence is not 
necessarily generated by the
same tool that created the MT candidate". I don't see that this change 
has an effect on any implementations with regards to testing. So we can 
move to PR without finalizing this discussion and try that during the PR 
period (at least 4 weeks). Please reply to Yves mail
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2013Jul/0062.html
with your thoughts about the change.

Best,

Felix


    [1]W3C

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

                                - DRAFT -

                               MLW-LT call

2013-07-17

    [2]Agenda

       [2] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2013Jul/0058.html

Attendees

    Present
           christian, jirka, leroy, olaf, phil, arle, dave,
           kfritsche

    Regrets
           Jörg, Yves, Felix

    Chair
           Dave Lewis

    Scribe
           Arle

Contents

      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]MLW-LT WG business: Minor changes
          2. [5]MLW-LT WG: script topic
          3. [6]MLW-LT WG: mt confidence
          4. [7]ITS IG: LQI-MQM mapping
          5. [8]ITS-IG XLIFF mapping
          6. [9]IG wiki and action item tracker set
      * [10]Summary of Action Items
      __________________________________________________________

    <scribe> meeting: MLW-LT

    rsagent, make log public

    <scribe> scribe: Arle

    scribe Arle

    <daveL> Hi jirka, we changed it last minute because enought WG
    topic have come up and we should prioritse minuting WG outcome

    <omstefanov> Jirka: There was an email saying because of MLW-LT
    business that would be default, with IG page linking to it

MLW-LT WG business: Minor changes

    <daveL> apologies: jorge, felix, yves,

    <daveL> agenda:
    [11]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2013
    Jul/0058.html

      [11] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2013Jul/0058.html

    Dave: We have a few MLW-LT working group topics.
    ... Felix proposed some minor changes.

    <daveL>
    [12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
    lt/2013Jul/0021.html

      [12] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Jul/0021.html

    Dave: No objections

    Arle: Seem like reasonable clarifications.

MLW-LT WG: script topic

    <daveL>
    [13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
    lt/2013Jul/0014.html

      [13] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Jul/0014.html

    Dave: Any objection to the proposal from Felix.
    ... There was no perfect solution, but we tried to work with
    the relevant people to address this in the future, rather than
    changing the spec now. JSON is one possibility.
    ... Some people have responded favorably on the email list.

    Olaf: No win-win is possible. So we stick with what we have and
    look for 2.x or 3 for better solutions.
    ... No one objected.

    Dave: I've already set up in the IG tracker something for
    requirements not addressed in 2.0. This could go there.

    <scribe> ACTION: dlewis6 to raise issue of addressing script
    topic for 2.x in IG.

MLW-LT WG: mt confidence

    <daveL> arle: agrees with yves that a confidence score could be
    generated separately from mt engine itself

    <daveL> phil: how does confidence score relate to conformance
    score

    <daveL> arle: yes there are relations

    <daveL> olaf: but it seems unclear if we mean an advance score
    before fact or after fact

    <daveL> ... and there is a need to have multiple instance of MT
    confidence

    <daveL> arle: usually confidence score is returned after the
    target

    Dave: I can ask internally about this for those working on
    these topics. Isn't QE a source measure looking at source and
    training data?

    <daveL> arle: for quality estimation with lucia specia this is
    definitely an assessment of the translation

    <daveL> dave: in this case would it be the same of LQI
    conformance type

    <daveL> arle: but isn't this just a switch

    <daveL> phil: but it does give a score

    <daveL> ... and has the advantage that it provides a standoff
    for multiple conformance annotaitons

    <omstefanov> we also should make sure we get Serge Gladkoff and
    Yves' comments on whatever final text we develop.

    <daveL> ACTION: dlewis6 to consult with MT expert in CNGL for
    clarification

    <daveL> ankit can you join the audio

    <Ankit> just a sec,,

    Christian: What is the goal of discussion? To address ITS 2.0
    or 2.x?
    ... We just need some clarity

    Ankit: ITS could use MT confidence to address both traditional
    MT confidence and QE.

    Dave: The specific issue was whether it is self-reported (the
    spec talks about an MT engine self-reporting a score). If there
    is no bitext, that is then a quality estimation. We could have
    multiple, so we can't handle the issue of multiples in the
    current set-up.
    ... There is also the conformance item in LQI, which could be
    used.

    <daveL> arle: using LQI does add some implementation weight

ITS IG: LQI-MQM mapping

    <daveL> arle: last week there was a call on how to address the
    MQM topic

    <daveL> ... two separable issue to be addressed

    <daveL> ... one is the mapping between MQM and LQI issue
    categories

    <daveL> .. this is fairly well solved with an exisitng mapping,
    though with some info lost in both directions

    <daveL> .. these can be dealt with in IG and documents

    <daveL> ... second issue is how to maintain the MQM work beyond
    the lifespan of the supporting project (QT-launchpad)

    <daveL> ... two possible homes are CRISP as GALA, or ITS IG

    <daveL> .. concensus in call was initially to do it in CRISP,
    but subsequently, GALA expressed preference to run it under ITS
    IG, led by DFKI initially

    <omstefanov> Arle: what is the deadline (end of life) of the EU
    project now developing MQM?

    <daveL> Arle: there are two different tasks - maintaining MQM
    category list, the other is the way to represent quality
    metrics with a defined reference to the quality profile

    <daveL> ... so the latter is a fairly big technical task

    <daveL> Phil: asks if project is done under GALA, is GALA
    membership required?

    <daveL> arle: no, keen to avoid and cost barrier and CRISP is
    happy to work this way

    <daveL> ... then once there was consensus moving forward to a
    more formal standard, at W3C or elsewhere

    <omstefanov> which wiki?

    <omstefanov> thx

    <daveL> arle: on the IG wiki

    <daveL> phil: would be interest to be involved

    <daveL> .. but membership fee an issue

    <scribe> ACTION: Arle to add MQM products on the IG tracker

    <Pedro> We are member of GALA, if helps.

    <daveL> olaf: when does the current MQM proect end

    <daveL> arle: june next year

    <daveL> ... looking for further funding already

    Dave: Yves isn't here so we don't have time to address the
    XLIFF/ITS mapping.

ITS-IG XLIFF mapping

    Dave: One small part for Phil.
    ... I was putting LQR (rating) into the new mapping page on the
    IG page. Would LQR ever apply inline or only structural?

    Phil: It is more structural.
    ... But that led to confusion, but when we added voting, that
    adding confusion. When we discussed voting, it led to the
    requirement for inline.

    Arle: We might want to note as best practice that you should
    use the biggest scope possible and keep it structural when
    possible.

    <daveL> action; dlewis6 to add LQR inline for voting and best
    practice note of using widest scope for this anntioan where
    appropriate

    <daveL> ACTION: dlewis6 to add LQR inline for voting and best
    practice note of using widest scope for this anntioan where
    appropriate

    <daveL> Topic; IG wiki and action item tracker set

IG wiki and action item tracker set

    Dave: I'm leaving deliverables in the WG and moving community
    building, etc. to the IG.

    <omstefanov> Dave: what would be good is to get an email (and
    post to BOTH wikis) is to have a table of which things relate
    to which in both groups, with links to both the WG and IG
    pages.

    Dave: I have separate products in the tracking to deal with
    XLIFF mapping, ontology, requirements, etc.
    ... If other ones come up, we can add new products to associate
    actions and issues with them. We will only bring up ones
    associated with a product.
    ... Any comments?

    Arle: Good way to do it and the products will help keep us
    focused.

    Dave: I'll talk to Felix about what to do with deliverables
    that could go in either the WG or IG.

    <omstefanov> happy holidays, Dave.

    <omstefanov> I'm off next wednesday, too.

    <omstefanov> bye

    <Pedro> happy holidays!

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Arle to add MQM products on the IG tracker
    [NEW] ACTION: dlewis6 to add LQR inline for voting and best
    practice note of using widest scope for this anntioan where
    appropriate
    [NEW] ACTION: dlewis6 to consult with MT expert in CNGL for
    clarification
    [NEW] ACTION: dlewis6 to raise issue of addressing script topic
    for 2.x in IG.

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________


     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [14]scribe.perl version
     1.137 ([15]CVS log)
     $Date: 2013-07-18 06:19:25 $

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

Received on Thursday, 18 July 2013 07:10:30 UTC