IRC log of mlw-lt on 2012-05-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

08:38:08 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #mlw-lt
08:38:08 [RRSAgent]
logging to
08:38:12 [fsasaki]
meeting: mlw-lt
08:38:15 [fsasaki]
chair: davidF
08:38:19 [fsasaki]
scribe: fsasaki
08:38:23 [Des]
Des has joined #mlw-lt
08:38:34 [fsasaki]
08:38:43 [Arle]
fsasaki, do you want me to scribe until you are able to join?
08:38:50 [fsasaki]
yes, that would be great
08:38:51 [dF]
08:39:31 [fsasaki]
present: arle, daveL, des, df, fsasaki, milan, moritz, pedro, tadej
08:39:43 [Arle]
David: The minutes from the last meeting need to be updated to reflect that I was in attendance.
08:40:44 [fsasaki]
last meetings minutes approved
08:40:47 [fsasaki]
topic: action items
08:40:48 [dF]
Topic: Action Item Review
08:41:37 [dF]
08:42:28 [fsasaki]
08:42:40 [fsasaki]
social media setup - what is the state?
08:42:57 [fsasaki]
david: social setup is managed between felix, arle and richard - no need to track the item
08:43:11 [fsasaki]
arle: like to see an ongoing action item for doing the social media outreach
08:43:31 [fsasaki]
david: arle proposed to regularly review this - I'll change it to "ongoing social media outreach"
08:44:18 [fsasaki]
david: new due date will be 18 May - title says "ongoing"
08:44:31 [Milan_]
Milan_ has joined #mlw-lt
08:44:32 [fsasaki]
now open action items
08:44:39 [fsasaki]
08:45:20 [fsasaki]
felix: new due date for is
08:45:25 [daveL]
08:45:32 [fsasaki]
08:45:59 [fsasaki]
felix: ACTION-77 - due next Monday
08:46:38 [fsasaki]
08:46:51 [fsasaki]
dave: new deadline should be 20 May
08:47:41 [fsasaki]
08:48:00 [fsasaki]
dave: two parts - one what pedro did, one suggestion I made what we meant about trigger
08:48:21 [fsasaki]
.. had some feedback from Moritz about separating that from progress state
08:48:36 [fsasaki]
.. two things remain: I'll update that area on that proposal
08:48:43 [fsasaki]
08:48:52 [fsasaki]
dave: so that we have separate data categories or values
08:49:08 [fsasaki]
.. we need to decide: what are the values of processes?
08:49:27 [fsasaki]
david: you will do the update by Monday?
08:49:28 [fsasaki]
dave: yes
08:49:43 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate fsasaki
08:50:47 [fsasaki]
08:51:19 [fsasaki]
tadej: there was my theory that the text analytics annotation would be a general superclass
08:51:42 [fsasaki]
.. I think there should be a superclass, but it should not be text analytics annotation, since that implies that this is automatic
08:51:54 [fsasaki]
.. the general class would be to refer to an entity
08:52:12 [fsasaki]
.. there is still an open question on the entity disambiguation, the rest is quite clear
08:52:23 [fsasaki]
dave: it's OK to have the issues open, as long as they are in the notes
08:52:36 [Arle]
s/entity disambiguation/mtDisambiguation/
08:53:08 [fsasaki]
pedro: we can use very basic distinctions
08:53:22 [fsasaki]
.. apart from the question "automatic generation or not"
08:54:12 [fsasaki]
.. the difference for me is: are you tagging a part of the real content (terminology, named entity) or whether you are adding information, a kind of classificator
08:54:33 [fsasaki]
.. you can add that additional information with a certain scope
08:54:49 [fsasaki]
.. this is a very basic distinction
08:55:03 [fsasaki]
tadej: we have also domain and genre, in the end they say the same thing
08:55:23 [fsasaki]
.. they basically say "what is the topic of the document?"
08:55:30 [fsasaki]
.. e.g. "advertising text"
08:55:42 [fsasaki]
.. that might be the same piece of information for the MT disambiguation problem
08:56:10 [fsasaki]
pedro: two distinctions according to the semantics - would be great to have feedback from piek vossen -
08:56:24 [fsasaki]
.. you can have two types of information: subject or semantic keyword
08:56:34 [fsasaki]
.. it is true that the domain metadata covers that
08:56:58 [fsasaki]
.. we have to see if we are going to add semantic primitives appart from domain
08:57:15 [fsasaki]
dave: intention of domain data category could cover the whole document than just a term
08:57:22 [fsasaki]
.. we might want to keep domain separately
08:57:43 [fsasaki]
.. but that wouldn't stop you for terminology to bind a domain declaration to some terminology
08:57:52 [fsasaki]
.. otherwise we need a terminology domain
08:58:08 [fsasaki]
.. e.g. a news report mentioning terminology for the medical domain
08:58:39 [fsasaki]
david: how does disambiguation data to genre?
08:58:53 [fsasaki]
dave: mt disambiguatino relates to terms I think, on the term level
08:59:31 [fsasaki]
tadej: Mtdisambigation is supposed to mark up fragments of text with additional information that would help me
08:59:47 [fsasaki]
.. is there something about mtdisambiguation that is not covered by domain?
09:00:25 [fsasaki]
need to involve thomas from lucy and declan from DCU in the discussion
09:01:17 [fsasaki]
david: you mentioned people who understand that from the MT point of view
09:01:27 [fsasaki]
.. we can also solicit feedback from asia online
09:01:37 [fsasaki]
.. this will be local text fragments for MT in realtime
09:01:57 [fsasaki]
.. asia online could give good feedback on this
09:02:08 [fsasaki]
arle: I'll give another try on this
09:02:46 [fsasaki]
david: some people in the working group, tadej, can you reach out to people like thomas from lucy and declan from dcu, to get their feedback by e.g. next week?
09:03:04 [fsasaki]
tadej: yes, will do
09:03:14 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate fsasaki
09:03:24 [fsasaki]
arle: will contact asia online guy again
09:04:30 [fsasaki]
david: new deadline is next friday
09:05:22 [fsasaki]
09:05:53 [fsasaki]
dave: might be defered until we have consolidated the data categories
09:06:04 [fsasaki]
.. next week
09:07:34 [fsasaki]
09:07:50 [daveL]
09:07:56 [fsasaki]
dave: sent a mail out last night
09:08:00 [fsasaki]
URI above
09:08:13 [fsasaki]
dave: I listed data categories, trying to keep the list up to date
09:08:46 [fsasaki]
.. some are ITS 1.0 requirements, we have to do that
09:09:02 [fsasaki]
.. next column: I recorded IDs of people who responded to the questionnaire
09:09:15 [fsasaki]
.. terminlogoy, context and translate came up a lot
09:09:46 [fsasaki]
.. in terms of difficulties, sometimes hard to see whether we understand the requirement and the use case
09:09:52 [fsasaki]
.. or there is a consensus problem
09:10:38 [fsasaki]
.. some technical knowledge sometimes hasn't emerged yet, e.g. mt disambiguation
09:10:59 [fsasaki]
david: so a lot of interest in domain
09:11:07 [fsasaki]
.. process triger
09:11:12 [fsasaki]
.. id value is difficult
09:11:34 [fsasaki]
.. context is important, but very difficult
09:11:43 [fsasaki]
.. apart from the initial post we haven't discussed
09:12:21 [fsasaki]
david: your action item is completed, now everyone should have a look to review it
09:14:24 [fsasaki]
felix: propose an implementation commitment column
09:14:25 [fsasaki]
dave: agree
09:14:30 [Milan]
BW: Disable (0 Mbit) 0 b/s (0 bytes) down, 0 b/s (0 bytes) up
09:14:50 [fsasaki]
action: daveL to add an implementation committment column to the table and ask people to populate it
09:14:50 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-82 - Add an implementation committment column to the table and ask people to populate it [on David Lewis - due 2012-05-11].
09:16:50 [fsasaki]
pedro: reference to provenance group - the related action belongs to dave
09:17:00 [fsasaki]
dave: yes, still working on that
09:17:19 [fsasaki]
.. there will be some decisions about what we will have in the document, what external etc.
09:17:31 [fsasaki]
.. I'll try and address that before early next week
09:17:42 [fsasaki]
pedro: I have my name also in the "autolanguage processing rule"
09:17:46 [fsasaki]
.. need to clarify the purpose of this
09:18:00 [fsasaki]
.. pending is also the ACTION-64
09:18:04 [fsasaki]
09:18:04 [trackbot]
ACTION-64 -- David Lewis to discuss with pedro about providing feedback to best-practices group -- due 2012-05-08 -- OPEN
09:18:04 [trackbot]
09:18:22 [fsasaki]
pedro: we only need to provide our input about best practices
09:18:47 [fsasaki]
dave: I'll follow up with you, I talked to Richard about that, to get it published it needs a kind of committment
09:19:06 [fsasaki]
.. to get it published you need to be involved
09:19:28 [fsasaki]
pedro: won't have time, just FYI
09:20:31 [fsasaki]
felix: please keep me in CC, I am also in the i18n core group and can maybe give additional information
09:20:38 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate fsasaki
09:21:16 [fsasaki]
topic: bringing the document up to spec
09:21:26 [fsasaki]
dave: we have a few weeks before we send a first draft out
09:21:35 [fsasaki]
.. I am prioritzing the consolidation
09:21:47 [fsasaki]
.. there is other issues like populating the use cases, to make it more understandable
09:21:59 [fsasaki]
.. some requirements are stubs, that haven't been elaborated on
09:22:13 [fsasaki]
.. should we make more effort to make the document more readable
09:23:11 [Arle]
Felix: There is no real rule about that. Think about what your most important audience is. Think that most of your readers will know what directionality is and it is enough to have a pointer to ITS 1.0 or HTML dir attribute, that is sufficient.
09:23:40 [Arle]
.. If there are different audiences then it is harder and you have to explain everything. But normally the requirement documents explain their audience and target only them.
09:23:57 [fsasaki]
dave: we should be writing this to target people in the localization industry
09:25:53 [Arle]
Felix: I think one value of the group is that we should make outreach to people where the localization industry is normally not involved. E.g., Dave will meet people from the Microsoft browser side of things. If you want HTML5 integration, it would help the localization industry.
09:26:23 [Arle]
.. But you need to communicate it intelligibly to the browser community. It is not something for the requirements document, but for a general strategy we should involve people from the HTML working group.
09:26:42 [Arle]
.. We should involve RIchard, e.g., with his blog post on the translate attribute.
09:27:13 [Arle]
.. It is OK to have the loc focus, but don't treat the fact that this is happening in the W3C as just a coincidence.
09:27:20 [Arle]
09:27:30 [fsasaki]
david: yes, it's an ultimate benefit for the downstream of the categories are taken up
09:28:01 [fsasaki]
dave: best way to do that is to focus on explaining which sections focus on which product classes
09:28:35 [fsasaki]
.. it is better to focus on getting somthing like arle's table so that they see which part is important for which audience
09:28:58 [fsasaki]
felix: agree, having a table with pointers to different audiences is a good approach
09:29:08 [fsasaki]
david: process diagrams will help too
09:29:19 [fsasaki]
arle: maybe on monday we can discuss that as well
09:30:34 [fsasaki]
topic: aob
09:31:40 [Milan_]
Milan_ has joined #mlw-lt
09:32:18 [fsasaki]
felix: will continue the liaison discussion on Tuesday offline - sorry for my strong mail to the public list, will make "peace again" with David
09:32:25 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate fsasaki
09:32:30 [fsasaki]
09:32:34 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate fsasaki