See also: IRC log
Naoto: from Japan, living in
... work for CNGL at UL
... working on MT-related aspect of localization process
... quality of translation, etc. are of interest
Felix: will publish in 22nd oc
... last edit on Oct-19
... lot of travel before, let's see what we can do.
... any new update for Provenance?
Dave: Phil sent me a new
... will look at it
... may need to adjust the example for tool reference
... Phil and I will try to discuss that tomorrow
... and post feedback to the list
Felix: so when ready?
Dave: maybe thursday
Felix: hopefuilly can do it before Seattle
<scribe> ACTION: DaveL to coordinate with Phil and send new draft to the list by Thursday [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/08-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-246 - Coordinate with Phil and send new draft to the list by Thursday [on David Lewis - due 2012-10-15].
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to put the provenance draft in spec before Seattle [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/08-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-247 - Put the provenance draft in spec before Seattle [on Felix Sasaki - due 2012-10-15].
Tadej: working draft going
... Arle needs to look at the definitions
... will circulate new version after
... Dave wants to look at it too
Tadej: I can ciculate current version
Felix: not needed
... let's wait for the final draft
... can we do that this week?
Tadej: yes, but may get
... and there is the global tool reference to deal with
Felix: important to have those
definition in darft
... maybe we can deal with the tool reference afterward with editors
... so we just need the next stable version
Tadej: then yes
... For text analysis annotation things will depends on the tool reference
... examples will be different
Dave: was trying to apply this to
... what about how to control Disambiguation?
... we could have a lot of annotations, but even where we don't want them
... but we can't control where
Tadej: Cocomore talked about
... because it wasn't important for use case
... maybe a switch would be useful?
Dave: Ok, but maybe it's a best
... suggest to discuiss this on the list
Tadej: switch make sense to expose
Dave: other things may be to concidered
tadej: sure, need examples then. Let's discuss it on the list
Felix: we are running out of time for new feature.
Dave: Phil, quickly: have an action to work on Provance
Felix: separation of HTML and XML
jirka has action-220
scribe: HTML users have specific
use cases to take into account
... we may need the draft to be freeze to work on that
Jirka: working on the schema
... hope to have something by end of week
... examples could stay there
... idea is to specific the difference (notation, etc.)
... case-sensitive or not between HTML or XML
... such section will explain the differences
... and the table with all the names will help
Felix: next week is fine too
Jirka: will try for this week.
Felix: next is text about Localization Implementers
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to put the Localization Implementer case in draft by end of the week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/08-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-248 - Put the Localization Implementer case in draft by end of the week [on Felix Sasaki - due 2012-10-15].
Felix: will do the NIF section
this week too
... editorial notes: some reviews to follow up with
... would be good to have co-editors to go through that
... Shaun can you look at that?
Felix: will keep you up to date on the edits we do
Felix: Empty string?
... seems the outcome is decided
Shaun: then how do you
... seems we have no default
Yves: will add that to specs
<fsasaki> "Domain in HTML5"
<fsasaki> scribe: fsasaki
yves: problem was that in some
cases we could point in some cases we could point to keyword
list of domain
... in some cases we point only to one domain value
... need to separate that
... idea is to provide the result of data category as a comma separated list
... that is built from the result of XPath expressions
... when you have different nodes of a single string, you do the same with a substring
... felix wrote an algorithm, I did that as a pseudo code and implemented it
<Yves_> scribe: Yves_
Felix: link is the pseudo code
<fsasaki> "Get the list of nodes resulting ...."
Felix: there are some example
... take 2mn to look at it
... any thoughts?
dF: should be working in
... looking now the HTML case
... not sure the issue of multiple keywords is resolved
Felix: idea here is to provide the list
<fsasaki> yves: goal is to get list of values
<fsasaki> .. not a single value
<fsasaki> .. after that you add to it
<fsasaki> david: domain should be one domain
<fsasaki> yves: but in HTML you can have several of them
<fsasaki> david: so are we happy with several keywords?
<fsasaki> yves: you can map them to one values
<fsasaki> felix: via domainMapping attribute
<fsasaki> david: so there is a method to parse multiple keywords and link a mapping
<fsasaki> .. so I can produce m:1 and m:n mapping
dF: ok, then I should be ok for n->1 or n->m mappings
Felix: this email above has some examples
df: we can only reduce?
df: no sure about this
... seems that to be able to have several domain is a problem?
... should we be able to set priority
Dave: we talked about this,
Declan noted it wasn't really possible to specify that
... difficult to have a set way to do this
... there are not really good practices for this
<Ankit> Yeah, in MT, usually a document will belong to one domain..
dF: there is an asymmetric aspect
in the data category
... we may need to do that for XML too
Felix: you can already
<fsasaki> yves: you can point to the same type of keyowrds in xml too
<fsasaki> .. if you want to have a list of separated values
<fsasaki> felix: would have an xpath expression that would point to several nodes
dF: I see.
... should we agree n->1 is the best practice?
... m->n mapping complicate things
Felix: it depends on what you testing
Felix: see in example there where domainMapping is used
dF: see you can do conformance
... but business case may be more tricky
... sevral domains may not be useable
Felix: so how to move forward?
dF: asking simply if the n->1 mapping is required
Dave: seems that it's more useful
to know all domains than to redice them to one
... reducing is fine, but using all is fine as well
... mapping/reduction is complicated to do
... not sure we can solve this on the ITS side
Naoto: from MT viewpoint having
one domain is simpler
... multiple doamins would be already in multiple documents
... different domains = different models
dF: think you can specify multiple domain in the same document
Felix: should continue this discussion in list
dF: we are using domain
... supporting multiple would be a big change
... not sure we can be conformant than
Shaun: sounds like issue is where
the data comes from
... like HTML keywords
... maybe that could be a best practice: primary set first
and then MT can just take the first one
Felix: sound like a good
... best practice allows to use things like keywords then
... but need more discussion probably
<scribe> ACTION: Yves_ to add the Domain algorithm in draft asap [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/08-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find Yves_. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/users>.
<scribe> ACTION: Yves to add the Domain algorithm in draft asap [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/08-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-249 - Add the Domain algorithm in draft asap [on Yves Savourel - due 2012-10-15].
Felix: any othe rtopic?
Phil: sent some question about
... could we talk about it Dave? on Wednesday call
Felix: I can help if you want, let me know.
Phil: late morning tomorrow might work for me.
Pedro: two questions:
... for unstable data categories: should we wait for implementation?
... and other question: are ready for readiness
Felix: please focus on data
categories that are important, even if not stable
... for readiness, please go ahead
Dave: agree with felix
Felix: main call is done
<fsasaki> Jirka, we lost you on gotomeeting, it seems
<fsasaki> ACTION: felix to make sure that the its20 draft says the right thing in sec. 1.1.1 about direcitonality and ruby - if we make them non-backward compatibly [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/10/08-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-250 - Make sure that the its20 draft says the right thing in sec. 1.1.1 about direcitonality and ruby - if we make them non-backward compatibly [on Felix Sasaki - due 2012-10-15].