- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 21:37:37 +0100
- To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
- CC: 'Dave Lewis' <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>, public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Hi Yves, all, Am 18.03.13 18:14, schrieb Yves Savourel: > Hi Dave, all, > > A few notes on the mapping: > > --- for MT Confidence. > > This data category has several use cases: > > - What do we do if we it in the original document (i.e. how do we map it to XLIFF (if at all)) > - How do we represent mt-confidence in alt-trans and how that gets back into the original document (if at all). > > for using quality-match in alt-trans: I suppose the value of quality-match is so loose that I suppose it can include the mt-confidence. But I'm really not sure that in such case the origin must be 'MT'. Origin is already in use today for indicating more specific information (e.g. not just MT but Google-Translate or Bing-Translator for example). > Having origin set to 'mt' or not doesn't really bring anything to the mapping. > > > --- for the ITS extension namespace. > > I really think we can use the existing http://www.w3.org/2008/12/its-extensions URI. What we define are attributes/elements that are meant to be used in specific context and don't have necessarily relationship with each other. So I think it's fine to have a schema for XLIFF+ITS/X that is used to validate such profile. It would probably be cleaner to have a separate namespace URI, esp. since as the namespace doc at http://www.w3.org/2008/12/its-extensions says "Note that the extensions of this namespace are not supposed to be stable, but are being discussed in the Interest Group. " Is there a reason not to have a separate URI, besides that I was rather slow in following my action item to install one? Best, Felix > > cheers, > -yves > > >
Received on Monday, 18 March 2013 20:38:06 UTC