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.




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.



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?


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