W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > May 2013

RE: [ISSUE-55][ACTION-510] Make LQI and LQR similar to mtConfidence in structure.

From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 04:33:14 -0600
To: "'Felix Sasaki'" <fsasaki@w3.org>, "'Dave Lewis'" <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
CC: "'Phil Ritchie'" <philr@vistatec.ie>, <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>, <kevin@spartanconsultinginc.com>, <chase@spartanconsultinginc.com>
Message-ID: <006e01ce52e9$f15a2f00$d40e8d00$@com>
I agree: what is the rational for forcing the use of standoff notation for spans with a single issue?

 

-    It may look a bit cramped to a human, but this is processed by machines.

-    Readers still have to implement both ways since it is just a recommendation.

 

-ys

 

From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org] 
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:47 AM
To: Dave Lewis
Cc: Phil Ritchie; public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org; kevin@spartanconsultinginc.com; chase@spartanconsultinginc.com
Subject: Re: [ISSUE-55][ACTION-510] Make LQI and LQR similar to mtConfidence in structure.

 

Hi Dave,

I may have missed your answer to



"It is recommended that only the the stand-off mode of annotation is used and that its:locQualityIssueType, its:locQualityIssueComment, locQualityIssueSeverity, its:locQualityIssueProfileRef and its:locQualityIssueEnabled are not used within trans-unit or alt-trans elements."


Asking here again since just yesterday I had students working with LQI annotations, and the inline approach was much easier in terms of creating, validating and analying the annotations.

Best,

Felix

Am 17.05.13 11:48, schrieb Dave Lewis:

On 12/05/2013 14:06, Phil Ritchie wrote:

In relation to the question posed about LQR: Can you re-phrase the question. Are you asking if it is required at an inline level? 


Yes. Do you see LQR ever being used inline?

Dave

 
Received on Friday, 17 May 2013 10:33:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:32:09 UTC