MultilingualWeb-LT Working Group Teleconference

26 Apr 2012

See also: IRC log


Dave_L, Dominic, Yves, Des, Mil_Jirka
Michael, Felix


<trackbot> Date: 26 April 2012

<scribe> scribe: DomJones

<daveL> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Apr/0109.html

<Jirka> What's meeting for today, it's 442857061? I can't connect to GoToMeeting.


<Jirka> got it from URL, thx

<daveL> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/images/6/65/20thAprilLT-WebMinutes.pdf

daveL: Any comments or discussions on the previous minutes?
... move on to action items

<daveL> https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/track/actions/open

<daveL> https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/open

<DomJones_> daveL: Action on locworld ongoing

<DomJones_> ... trying to get intouch with TAUS.

<DomJones_> arle: by impression may be Japp is traveling.

<DomJones_> daveL: Remind people to look at google docs

<DomJones_> ... on action 65 define more clearly the creation, transform and passthrough

<DomJones_> arle: havent have time, due to travelling will do today

<DomJones_> daveL: Questionnaire content is up, went through and took out salient bits, interested bits, highlighted new bits

<DomJones_> daveL: action 67 ranking data categories in terms of difficulty. Made a start on this, will send out today

<DomJones_> ... arle are you going to contact india based wg memberS?

<DomJones_> arle: Will do today

Name of Standard

<DomJones_> daveL: Action on naming of standard. Felt basic feeling is towards ITS 2.0, Yves made a good point about internationalisation being broad enough to cover localisation

<DomJones_> ... anybody have any comments on this? I table the motion we go for ITS 2.0.

<DomJones_> arle: It would seem thats a good decision, could be re-visited, but better to go with that for now

<DomJones_> daveL: Record that we'll go with ITS 2.0

Possible Invited Expert

<DomJones_> daveL: Active members have to be W3C members, but can have invited experts join the group. Had a request from ?? regular attendee at LRC conferences, MLW conferences.

<DomJones_> ... working with JaneCat?? CMS platform. Relelvent experience. Spoke to co-chairs favourable to propose him as invited member. W3C mgnt have final say.

<DomJones_> ... any issues from the working group?

<DomJones_> ... any objectives?

<DomJones_> arle: exactly the kind of person we should be asking to join

<dF> hi all, I am late due to issues with my machine and GoTo..

<daveL> olaf-michael stefanov

<DomJones_> daveL: No objections, so we'll go with this.

<DomJones_> dF: I agree with Arle, exactly the right type of person, although management decide. From a material point of view a perfect fit


<DomJones_> daveL: Moving onto requirements, plan is to circulate req doc in early may as a w3c working draft. Goes round formal process of working draft to the w3c, drives traction on this.

<DomJones_> ... need to look at consolidating requirements. Questionnaire is completed.

<daveL> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Questionnaire_Results

<DomJones_> ... may talk about the assessment of the questionnaire.

<DomJones_> ... put a quick summary (anon) at the above link. Will email respondents and let them know this exists. Will contact them anyway to see if they are interested in furthur discussions.

<DomJones_> ... categorised: Problem raised, specific meta-data, ??

<DomJones_> ... is that something we're covering already or something that needs to be addressed / given more thought.

<DomJones_> ... gives us an idea of what comes up the most often. What is interesting is that context is a big issue. In translations, layout, etc. Gives us more indication that context is important.

<DomJones_> ... other thing that came up is the problems people have with segmentation. Out of our scope but maybe need to consider this. Do we need to mark-up segment boundaries.

<DomJones_> dF: Agree not our call but should look into effecitve markup into information exchange.

<DomJones_> ... it would be good to talk about this a bit more here.

<DomJones_> ... plain text env are valid as a lot of CMS still work with plain text. But we should look at the ?? proposal from the very start ??= join or now join proposal

<DomJones_> ... going to provide a link to this for records.

<DomJones_> arle: have some revisions to make to this propsol.

<DomJones_> dF: @arle could you provide a link for us?

<DomJones_> daveL: what would be helpful is that you compose email summarizing current discussion on join / not join. Find the right place in the req doc

<DomJones_> ACTION on dF to compose email summarizing current discussion on join / not join.

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on

<DomJones_> ACTION dF to compose email summarizing current discussion on join / not join.

<trackbot> Created ACTION-70 - Compose email summarizing current discussion on join / not join. [on David Filip - due 2012-05-03].

<DomJones_> dF: we should look at this and bring up some sensible markup

<DomJones_> daveL: equiv in markup is a span / ID, have proposal for general ID value, but not use-cases. If we have segmented doc do we mark each as span, give seg id etc?

<dF> http://www.w3.org/TR/unicode-xml/

<DomJones_> ... when you segment its done through whole document,

<DomJones_> ... do something very simular to what LISA did in XML text memory where a span exists for every segment

<DomJones_> ... need to look at this in detail

<DomJones_> dF: Motivation for join / none join is the pipeline of seg operation

<DomJones_> ... In most languages you cannot have ??UA29 there will allways be exceptions. REGEX will not solve all issues. The approach that was being formed was that UAX29 contains all sensible rules.

<DomJones_> ... UAX29 should capture high percentage of common and specific languages.

<DomJones_> ACTION daveL to make sure ACTION-70 is included in requirements document / working group requirements doc

<trackbot> Created ACTION-71 - Make sure ACTION-70 is included in requirements document / working group requirements doc [on David Lewis - due 2012-05-03].

<DomJones_> arle: naming discussions are on-going

<DomJones_> arle: Shows how far from acceptance W3C in people pushing back from stanard

<DomJones_> dF: We should look at whats wrong with the mark-up as to why its not being used. Dont want to preclude discussion results

<DomJones_> arle: we can expect debate on this

<DomJones_> dF: the debate is sound, should happen and results should be usable markup or an update of governing document.

<DomJones_> daveL: other point on questionnaires - requests for Web Service API

<DomJones_> ... out of scope?

<DomJones_> Des: For this yes, glad a requirement down the line is important, out of scope for this group.

<DomJones_> daveL: there will be things we rule out of scope for difficulty, time, scope etc. These will go into ITS 3.0

<DomJones_> daveL: Couple of other things. Suggestions for consolidating requirements. On process triggers

<DomJones_> ...

<DomJones_> ... moritz, improved, dave legal, proofed state. Rather than hardwire different status should we roll this into a process trigger which triggers next operational event on content

<DomJones_> ... use this to cover different statues, approval etc, we're not giving the status of where we have got to but where we are on a process

<DomJones_> ... generic flag that indicates the next process

<DomJones_> Des: what are IMPL decisions for this, how could this be IMPL across workflow

<DomJones_> daveL: Content on CMS, LSP has content that ready to be translated, some parts are not ready yet. Here is a URL , documents, sections, each with different statuses. Markup helps manage that process.

<DomJones_> ... PhilR talking about how often working through different versions of a document. Where in the version is that docuemnt.

<DomJones_> Des: usecase makes perfect sense, different sections of different docs in different states. Not applicable in an overall workflow situation, used for managing a workflow. Dont see use-case there. Are we talking about that level of mangement?

<DomJones_> daveL: Last week general specification of workflow, how is that specified? Need to know names of different processes. CMS, LSP need to agree, but maybe outside of our scope.

<DomJones_> ... Control of workflow out of scope.

<DomJones_> Des: Focusing with the domain of the CMS really?

<DomJones_> DaveL: yes

<DomJones_> ... possible to define relationship between updates, changes etc.

<DomJones_> Des: Very useful in continuous translation process.

<DomJones_> daveL: @pedro, any comments? Addressing process trigger that you already suggested

<DomJones_> pedro: Trying to catch-up on this.

<DomJones_> daveL: Continue this disscussion on mailing list

<DomJones_> pedro: I dont see a use-case now, but normally clients do not prevent. Suggest that redundancy occurs in processing, proofreading state.

<DomJones_> daveL: Running out of time. Four other candidates for consolidating requirements. Confidentially - merge with content licensing terms.

<DomJones_> ... overlap between locale specific content & consolodate some provenance terms.

<DomJones_> ... have been looking at provenance w3c wg agent definition, may use that

<DomJones_> ... finally MT dis-ambig ?? ?? and ?? all seem related. Put peoples names against those, suggest we give each groups an action to look at consolidations.

<DomJones_> ACTION daveL to discuss and circulate email on consolidations.

<trackbot> Created ACTION-72 - Discuss and circulate email on consolidations. [on David Lewis - due 2012-05-03].

<DomJones_> daveL: trying to remove redundancy, reduce etc.

<DomJones_> daveL: Final thing on advancing requirements as a document. How do we turn it into a more readable document? Currently have data-cat section requirements. Nothing in w3c which requires us to have a complete req doc

<DomJones_> ... req doc can be carried over. How digestible is this document?

<DomJones_> ... to people who are external to the WG? Do we need more descriptive work?

<DomJones_> arle: need more descrptive work and a prose description for each data category (an informative annex)

<DomJones_> ... a seperate page linked to, clear statement of scope for each in understandable prose.

<DomJones_> pedro: Use case missing 4.7 park of WP 4, real time translation is not represented.

<DomJones_> daveL: Is it supported by existing data categories or not in flow?

<DomJones_> ACTION daveL to add real time translation into end to end use case

<trackbot> Created ACTION-73 - Add real time translation into end to end use case [on David Lewis - due 2012-05-03].

<DomJones_> pedro: We have already enough for doing the 1st spec as things can change later on. We have until even next year. When we do real showcases we can discover things we now dont see clearly. Important to involve others who can understand this.

<DomJones_> ... for a 1st / 2nd version of ITS arle you sent a doc with future / potential things for the future of ITS 1.0

<DomJones_> arle: must have been felix

<DomJones_> daveL: have some links to this already in the document

<DomJones_> pedro: We need to check to see if ITS 2 is moving future uses of 1 forward.

<DomJones_> ACTION daveL to check ITS 1.0 future work is included in the req document

<trackbot> Created ACTION-74 - Check ITS 1.0 future work is included in the req document [on David Lewis - due 2012-05-03].

<DomJones_> pedro: Only area we can figure out data category not present is in post-editing phase. Have people working on MT but don't know about how the manual PE will require MD or will produce additional MD?

<DomJones_> daveL: things will come up as we do more IMPL anyway

MLW-LT - XLIFF collaboration

<DomJones_> daveL: Need to cover relationship with XLIFF TC. Bryan S, others in Dublin for XLIFF TC being held at TCD. WOuld be good to get together issue list for topics of discssions. Between our WG and XLIFF TC

<DomJones_> ... dF would you be happy to start the ball rolling on this?

<DomJones_> dF: I am happy to do this, but brief update. Formal Liaison is setup in both directions. last tuesday Arle was appointed by tc for official liason of XLIFF at MLW-LT. Arle and I are responsible for synchronization between the groups.

<DomJones_> ACTION dF to post mandate between XLIFF TC and MLW-LT to public list

<trackbot> Created ACTION-75 - Post mandate between XLIFF TC and MLW-LT to public list [on David Filip - due 2012-05-03].

<DomJones_> daveL: Any other business?

<DomJones_> next meeting on Friday a week tomorrow.

<DomJones_> dF: I will be chairing this from next week

<DomJones_> pedro: Dave lewis = actionman!

<DomJones_> daveL: Thanks and closes meeting.

<DomJones_> zakim@voip.w3.org

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/06/02 12:02:18 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136  of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found Scribe: DomJones
Inferring ScribeNick: DomJones
Present: Dave_L Dominic Yves Des Mil_Jirka
Regrets: Michael Felix
Found Date: 26 Apr 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/04/26-mlw-lt-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]