RE: [ISSUE-132] Updated LQI section

+1 thanks Christian

Cheers,
Pablo.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-----Mensaje original-----
De: Phil Ritchie [mailto:philr@vistatec.ie] 
Enviado el: jueves, 05 de septiembre de 2013 9:01
Para: Lieske, Christian
CC: Arle Lommel; Multilingual Web LT Public List Public List
Asunto: Re: [ISSUE-132] Updated LQI section


+1


On 5 Sep 2013, at 08:52, "Lieske, Christian" <christian.lieske@sap.com>
wrote:

> Hi Arle, all,
>
> It's great to see the positive uptake of the suggestions I made.
>
> I understand the point about MQM, and wonder if the following change 
> in
wording could address both your point and mine:
>
> 	Existing wording in appendix> The issue types defined in
Localization
Quality Issue were derived from the QTLaunchPad project's Multidimensional
Quality Metrics (MQM) framework established by the QTLaunchPad project (see.
Additional guidance on this project may be found at [Multidimensional
Quality Metrics] ).
>
> 	Existing wording in LQI section> The values of locQualityIssueType
were derived from a careful analysis of existing translation quality
assessment tools and models, such as the LISA QA Model, SAE J2450 [?add
reference?] , and various commercial tools.
>
> 	Alternative wording for LQI section > The values of
locQualityIssueType were derived from an early version of the QTLaunchPad
project's Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) framework established by
the QTLaunchPad project. MQM is based on a careful analysis of existing
translation quality assessment tools and models, such as the LISA QA Model,
SAE J2450 [?add reference?] , and various commercial tools.
>
> Best regards,
> Christian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arle Lommel [mailto:arle.lommel@dfki.de]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 4. September 2013 14:31
> To: Multilingual Web LT Public List Public List
> Subject: [ISSUE-132] Updated LQI section
>
> Here is the LQI section with all but one of Christian's suggestions
implemented. The only one I didn't implement was giving more reference to
MQM in the main body. My only hesitation here is that the ITS 2.0 results
really predate the current MQM state and MQM may continue to change, so I
did not want to tie us more to it, nor did it really fit there since ITS
2.0 and MQM shared the same body of formats that were considered rather than
MQM being a step on the way. If you are OK with that, Christian, I think we
are done.
>
> Best,
>
> Arle
>
>

************************************************************
VistaTEC Ltd. Registered in Ireland 268483. 
Registered Office, VistaTEC House, 700, South Circular Road, Kilmainham.
Dublin 8. Ireland. 

The information contained in this message, including any accompanying
documents, is confidential and is intended only for the addressee(s). 
The unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, or alteration of this message is
strictly forbidden. If you have received this message in error please notify
the sender immediately.
************************************************************

Received on Thursday, 5 September 2013 10:10:04 UTC