[Minutes] MLW-LT / ITS IG call 2013-07-24

Hi all,

the minutes are at

http://www.w3.org/2013/07/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html

and below as text. About the MLW-LT WG topic "MT Confidence clarification"
http://www.w3.org/2013/07/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#item02
we agreed to move forward with the draft as is
http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#mt-confidence-score-generation-tools
and David took an action item to gather feedback during PR whether the 
broad scope is OK
https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/559

About the XLIFF mapping (IG topic)
- current state of text analysis is ok
- LQ rating will have the language about "local level" dropped
- for MT Confidence the usage scenario "allow for confidence information 
from multiple MT engines" is something for ITS 2.0' successor - peopel 
are encouraged to put this and other proposals for future version of ITS 
here http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/IssuesAndProposedFeatures 
(wiki is still focused on ITS 1.0, needs to be cleaned up)
- agreement that for termInfoRef there will be no hard wired definition 
what is available then one resolves termInfoRef
- David took an action  to draft guidance for second processing of 
Locale Filter information when the target is not defined in first 
processor, see
https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/559

Best,

Felix


    [1]W3C

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

                                - DRAFT -

                         MLW-LT WG / ITS IG Call

24 Jul 2013

    [2]Agenda

       [2] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Jul/0040.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2013/07/24-mlw-lt-irc

Attendees

    Present
           felix, yves, des, df, jirka, phil, ankit, chriLi,
           pnietoca, pedro

    Regrets
           Arle, Declan, Dave, Karl

    Chair
           Yves

    Scribe
           fsasaki

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]MT Confidence clarification (MLW-LT WG topic)
          2. [6]XLIFF mapping
          3. [7]mt confidence again
          4. [8]XLIFF mapping
          5. [9]aob
      * [10]Summary of Action Items
      __________________________________________________________

    agenda is here
    [11]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
    lt/2013Jul/0040.html

      [11] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Jul/0040.html

MT Confidence clarification (MLW-LT WG topic)

    yves: there was the question wherer MT Confidence should be
    restricted to self generated score or not
    ... felix made change after the discussion

    result would be here
    [12]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/i
    ts20/its20.html#mt-confidence-score-generation-tools

      [12] 
http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#mt-confidence-score-generation-tools

    scribe: would you have any comments? Time to look at it? That
    is the current text

    phil: didn't have time to look at the text, but at the thread
    ... I had in my mind something generated by the MT engine
    ... but I am happy enought to broaden this, as some people said
    in the thread
    ... as long as we are careful about the definition

    yves: any other comments?

    Yves_, comment from felix on IRC: the change I made was only
    removing the "self reported" part and adding above note

    Yves_: MT Confidence still means the same, but it is not linked
    only to the MT engine

    Yves reading the note in the link above

    Yves: the note makes the distinction between the two types of
    generators for confidence information
    ... so it seems everybody is ok with the change

    yves, where was no tracker issue for this, but I (felix) have
    added an item in the change log

XLIFF mapping

    yves: several entries in XLIFF mapping

    <Yves_>
    [13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2013
    Jul/0057.html

      [13] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2013Jul/0057.html

    yves: mail is about update of LQI and ...

    dF: I had dropped of, what did you hear last? You didn't hear
    what I said about MT Confidence

    yves: no - but go ahead

mt confidence again

    dF: tools should rather use lq rating than mt confidence for
    information that is not self generated

    phil: one thing that came up in relation to broadening mt
    confidence
    ... we don't have a standoff version of mt confidence
    ... not sure whether that would be an issue

    dF: this category doesn't need standoff because it does not
    need mashing
    ... if you broaden the definition you open the use case to
    provide conflicting confidence scores
    ... we never intended to have standoff because we said this is
    self confidence
    ... one should use rating because, it has standoff

    yves: it doesn't, only ITS lqi and provenacne have standoff
    ... what you said is the same for rating
    ... you can use different engines but there is only one way to
    mark it up, since there is no standoff for ITS rating

    dF: don't you feel that third party conformance is for rating?

    yves: I looked at the example of quest
    ... the value they are getting is the same like the mt
    confidence self reported
    ... to me lq rating is much more like a composite index based
    on many things
    ... that is much more linked to conformance and human voting

    dF: we have one issue or the other
    ... usage of multiple scores either on confidence or rating

    yves: don't think that this is a huge issue
    ... don't think that these data categories will be used a lot

    phil: isn't this tied up with MQM / QTLaunchpad?

    yves: LQI is, not sure about rating

    phil: will QTLP have a rating?

    yves: don't think so
    ... the question is: if you have a value like quest where
    should it go

    phil: is it a problem to have either mt confidence or lqi?
    ... until we have lots of use cases
    ... or do we need a new quality type

    yves: looking at declan's feedback he was ok with result of
    quest as an MT confidence value

    dF: quest or other MT metrics are closer to MT confidence
    ... if you are an MT enginge owner it is breaking of
    transaction if you allow for overriding self reported
    confidence with a third party tool

    yves: this is processing related

    yves_, can I say something?

    yves_: people will not read the spec and will just put an MT
    confidence score

    phil: don't feel strongly enough to stand in the way of
    broadening this

    <Yves_> felix: to dF, would current draft be ok?

    <Yves_> .. and could you check with MT providers if it's ok
    this way

    <Yves_> .. we need more feedback

    <Yves_> .. I am asking you if we can move forward with current
    version

    <Yves_> .. we could reverse the change if needed during PR - it
    is informative only

    <Yves_> .. there is no testing impact

    <Yves_> df: it's not substantive

    <Yves_> .. so change would be ok

    <Yves_> second quaestion: what's the current version

    <Yves_> .. self-reported? or not?

    <Yves_> felix: not self-reported

    <Yves_> .. action for david would be to check whether allowing
    non self reported MT confidence should be reverted or not

    <Yves_> felix: would current version be ok?

    <Yves_> df: either is fine

    <Yves_> felix: then let's use the current one

    <Yves_> .. and get an action for david to gather the feedback
    from MT engine people

    <scribe> ACTION: dfilip to get feedback on the MT Confidence
    broadening during PR - due 29 August [recorded in
    [14]http://www.w3.org/2013/07/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-559 - get feedback on the MT
    Confidence broadening during PR [on David Filip - due
    2013-08-29].

XLIFF mapping

    <Yves_>
    [15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2013
    Jul/0057.html

      [15] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2013Jul/0057.html

    <Yves_>
    [16]http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/XLIFF_1.2_Mapping#
    Text_Analysis

      [16] 
http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/XLIFF_1.2_Mapping#Text_Analysis

    yves: first on text analysis

    yves introducing on text analysis mapping

    yves: any comments / objections against the mapping?

    no comments

    yves: now lq rating

    <Yves_>
    [17]http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/XLIFF_1.2_Mapping#
    Localization_Quality_Rating

      [17] 
http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/XLIFF_1.2_Mapping#Localization_Quality_Rating

    yves: no resolution on that so far - also question on phil
    ... do we want to allow granularity for lq rating
    ... or have it only on the xliff target level
    ... the ITS 2.0 definition does not say "you should or should
    not go on the word level"

    phil: discussed that last week

    des: what would be the case against this?

    dF: in source content, no a sub sentence level
    ... lq rating can appear. So we shouldn't prevent that in XLIFF
    ... we can discourage it, but it shoud be allowed as a mapping

    yves: why would we even discourage it?

    dF: it would compete with terminology information

    yves: disagree - in term confidence is avail., it is very
    different from a vote

    des: you could use it to mark up terminology

    dF: you would not mark terminology but terminology errors
    ... that is different - you could still have terminology markup

    yves: confidence in terminology does not say "it is a good
    translation"

    dF: so we drop the language about local level

    yves: agree - will make the change
    ... there is not a lot to change anyway
    ... now MT confidence again

    <Yves_>
    [18]http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/XLIFF_1.2_Mapping#
    MT_Confidence

      [18] 
http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/XLIFF_1.2_Mapping#MT_Confidence

    yves: now the XLIFF mapping topic for MT confidence
    ... we had a discussion about origion XLIFF attribute
    ... we discussed that in bled
    ... we decided not to overload the entry
    ... this linked to the question we had before
    ... when multiple engines have a score, what to do
    ... there is no resolution, having standoff here would be a
    major change

    christian: this would be something we would put on our lists of
    enhancement requests for ITS2?

    yves: exactly
    ... how to put that on the list

    felix: would put that on the ITS IG wiki for the time being

    will have a pointer to the location soon

    <Yves_>
    [19]http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/XLIFF_1.2_Mapping#
    Locale_Filter

      [19] 
http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/XLIFF_1.2_Mapping#Locale_Filter

    yves: now locale filter mapping

    hi yves, all, I would propose to put the issues and proposed
    features here
    [20]http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/IssuesAndProposedF
    eatures . Currently it is focused on ITS 1.0, but we can update
    it with proposals for ITS 2.0

      [20] 
http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/IssuesAndProposedFeatures

    yves describing the locale filter mapping

    yves: nobody has made a comment no this one so far

    dF: wonder - there might be more for XLIFF
    ... we should think of valid transformations
    ... what should be guidance to get from one to the other
    ... ITS information is not longer available
    ... the extractor with extended information - what are you
    doing

    yves: you merge the target

    david: it no longer contains the extended information

    yves: why would you need the extended information?

    david: you expect to merge back into multiple languages
    ... if the extractor does not define a target, the LSP still
    will need to define a target

    yves: if they understand ITS - otherwise you cannot process the
    file

    pedro joining the meeting

    discussion about xliff - ITS extraction and merging

    yves: think that has not to do with the mapping, it is an XLIFF
    problem

    <Yves_> ACTION: davidF to draft guidance for second processing
    of Locale Filter when target is not defined in first processor
    in wiki [recorded in
    [21]http://www.w3.org/2013/07/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action05]

    Action is
    [22]https://www.w3.org/International/its/ig/track/actions/1

      [22] https://www.w3.org/International/its/ig/track/actions/1

    yves: one question on termInfoRef is still open
    ... we both came to an agreement on that

    <Yves_>
    [23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2013
    Jul/0022.html

      [23] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2013Jul/0022.html

    felix: I agreeded with the proposal to say that there is no
    hard wired definition what is available then one resolves
    termInfoRef

    yves: correct.
    ... if you have disagreement comment on that asap
    ... otherwise no other mapping issues currently

aob

    <pnietoca> thank you bye!

    dF: next week we may be able to use this gotomeeting again

    yves: thanks all, bye

    adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: davifF to draft guidance for second processing of
    Locale Filter when target is not defined in first processor in
    wiki [recorded in
    [24]http://www.w3.org/2013/07/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action04]
    [NEW] ACTION: dfilip to get feedback on the MT Confidence
    broadening during PR - due 29 August [recorded in
    [25]http://www.w3.org/2013/07/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action03]

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________


     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [26]scribe.perl version
     1.138 ([27]CVS log)
     $Date: 2013-07-24 13:14:26 $

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

Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2013 13:23:41 UTC