See also: IRC log
david: I see impact on two
... good to be official part of HTML, good for our prestige
... but it will also force us to be more consicse , more compact
... I agree, we need to make the cut really soon
... and what we put out of scope in the first wave
Felix: Some background why this
happened. In the original charter we said we would define
metadata for HTML5. We would use RDFa and Microdata. This
approach is difficult. Jirka, in discussion with the HTML
group, was pointed to a solution, to define its- attributes.
... This mechanism was not created by us, but was advocated because namespaces are not possible in HTML5, but this is a replacement for that.
... W3C international discussion did not say it was a wrong approach, but rather that we need to coordinate this work with the HTML5 working group, that we keep them aware and are OK with it.
... But what does it mean that they are OK with it? One thing is that it does *not* mean we are adding attributes to HTML5 itself.
... Rather we need a review from the HTML5 working group that they are OK with our approach. It sounds like a minor difference, but to come back to the process, adding attributes to HTML5 would be adding to the work done in HTML5. We cannot do that. HTML5 is in last call and nothing can be added. All that we are doing is defining attributes and getting the blessing of the HTML that we are following the right approach.
... We need to change the charter for this because we said we would not invent our attributes, but instead use RDFa and microdata, but we are inventing our own attributes. The change in charter is to make them aware that we are doing this.
... In terms of timing, it is important that we do this now before we finalize the draft so that we can move forward with out plan.
... Last point: as David said, this has good parts and bad parts. The good part is that we now have more interest from the HTML community and working group in our work. That interest, I know from experience, is not easy. This is all public, btw., you can and should let people know.
... The bad aspect is what David said: we can be motivated to be as web content-producer digestible/understandable as possible. We need to be careful that what we describe and define and keep that perspective in mind: we need to make it understandable to people outside of localization. Look at what Arle did in changing attribute names to make them more understandable.
... Like David said, it also means we need to close the set of data categories we want to deal with.
... We may still add mtConfidence, but aside from that, it makes sense ton concentrate now on how to sell what we have agreed upon to the web content people.
Felix: One admin detail: to make this work, we will need a review of the charter. Everyone representing an organization, please fill in this form or get your rep to fill it in.
David: I think this is important and that we took the time is good. But let's keep the discussion short.
david: comments that Yves made
were made before
... the category as specified now contains two to three different categories
... I think the contents of this category, at least the display-size should be taken further
... is there anybody who wants to take this further?
pedro: you mean to split this into several ones?
felix: propose that micha takes an action item to split this into several ones
<scribe> ACTION: michael to split special requirements into several data categories [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/08/02-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-189 - Split special requirements into several data categories [on Michael Kruppa - due 2012-08-09].
micha: it would be just two categories
<Arle> Apologies for having to drop out. I'll look at the minutes later, but someone came to the door and I can't put them off. I may be able to jump back in later.
david: display size, storage,
... this should be split I think
... should be quite easiy
pedro: so summary is: we split special requirements into three: display, storage size, forbidden characters
david: yes, band characters are
the least stable part
... the reg ex thing needs to be resolved
pedro: the current attributes of
storage size and display size are part of one category?
... for me it is fine
david: a lot of discussion about
this during last weeks call
... action item for tadej to implement this, tadej, what's your progress?
tadej: I went through the
... mostly things were around good terminology to fit all communities
... right now I have a version that integrates all suggestions
... I still work on the one with different variants of pointer, refpointer etc.
... I will send a new version of the draft, this time on google docs
david: I thought it should be final?
tadej: thought it would be
... I have enough information from everyone
felix: no need to have too many call for consensus for a data category, if it is ready, we will put it into the draft
david: have a task force or just post it?
tadej: from my perspective I
think this is ready
... just want to have another review from the people on the call
felix: that's fine
pedro: for this data
... we should involve piek vossen, he can give great input on this
felix: agree, if we send this to the list, piek hopefully can join the discussion
david: had good discussion about
... mtEngine self evaluation
... Chris Wendt said that this would serve their purpose
declan: understand the
difficiulties ms is mentioning in the mail
... the parts MS was talking about could be hard to implement
... would propose to jsut implement mtConfidence score
... the automatic metrix are hard and may not be that useful across the automatic workflow
david: in the august list, I
responded to jan nelson
... declan and chris wendt made similar points
... other pointers are needed to produce the score, but not needed for a content attribute
... agree it would be messy to try to implement this with reference implementations
... agree with Declan and Chris that self evaluation order and confidence would be more useful and stable
... happy to drive only mtConfidence
... human evaluation does not suffer from this
... many people do this
... not error checking, but people using simple scale
... this evaluation gets more importance
... would be good to be able to encode it
felix: I hope that we can postpone this discussion since we have too much stuff to do, we should focus on that
pedro: for post editing you need
a lot of other information
... score itself is not enough
david: think post editing is out
... it would be messy if we try to map score and post editing
... not sure if this is what you meant
... I'm happy to continue just with mtConfidence
... this needs to move forward on the ML
<scribe> ACTION: dfilip to draft a section about mtConfidence, based on the discussion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/08/02-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-190 - Draft a section about mtConfidence, based on the discussion [on David Filip - due 2012-08-09].
david: maxime is working on
... prominent in the light of recent changes
<tadej> scribe: tadej
fsasaki: The current status is that output to RDF is already done and independent of RDFa or Microdata, we are at the point of needing a chapter for the standard and defining the RDF ontology.
<fsasaki> rdf representation here http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Jul/0065.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Jul/att-0065/nodelist-rdfxml.xml
<fsasaki> phil: we are very close to being able to issue our call
<fsasaki> .. had various naming and implementation details, we are very close
<fsasaki> david: I discussed with arle that he would submit a speaking proposal for seattle
<fsasaki> .. what's the time line for closing?
<fsasaki> phil: need to check with Arle
<fsasaki> david: on track for closing this within august
<fsasaki> see overdue actions at https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/overdue
<fsasaki> action-158 - jirka, will do editorial work next week
<fsasaki> jirka: might make sense that yves edits this
<fsasaki> action-164 discussed during the call today
<fsasaki> felix: see editing plans for HTML5 and query language attr. here http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Aug/0062.html
<fsasaki> felix: this is just a start about the prague f2f, feel free to comment
<fsasaki> david: short update on my action item - seattle event
<fsasaki> david: we extended call for papers
<fsasaki> .. felix and arle, can you promote the event on the social media setup
<fsasaki> ACTION: felix to promote seattle event on mlw setup [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/08/02-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-191 - Promote seattle event on mlw setup [on Felix Sasaki - due 2012-08-09].
<fsasaki> david: we have a strong pc
<fsasaki> david: lot's of interesting submissions on the way
<fsasaki> david: on good track with this event
<fsasaki> pedro: felix asked me to present in prague implementation, things of what we use for our showcase, progress indicator and readyness
<fsasaki> felix: everything you have available, if possible just show us on the list
<fsasaki> pedro: agree to focus on this next year
<fsasaki> david: thanks, think we did good progress today, thanks all for your hard work
<fsasaki> bye everybody