Re: [ISSUE-132] Updated LQI section

I'll make these changes. I think this does what needs to be done.

-Arle

On 2013 Sep 5, at 08:51 , "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
>

Received on Thursday, 5 September 2013 11:37:03 UTC