See also: IRC log
felix: thanks for yves, dom and
leroy on advancing testsuite
... any comments on further progress to milestones
dom: some divergence in dates in
... also have webinar planned
... but will plan out key dates update thursday with Leroy
... and will publish new dates on steps through published testsuite files, revision deadlines etc by Friday
leroy: next version still need stable test files for provenance and disambiguation
felix: asks in updated plan, will we have all tests run by march workshop?
leroy: think this is an acceptable timeframe, with enough time for all impementers to test this out
dom; hope there should only be small correction to implementations, not to the test suite
felix; important that implementors signal if they need more time to hit this test deadline, so we can manage the presentaiton of this
felix: asks arle when we can make update in action-287
arle: can try and finish by tomorrow tuesday
felix: asks is everyone is happy in 0101 mail?
<fsasaki> ACTION: felix to edit 101 mail into spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/19-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-298 - Edit 101 mail into spec [on Felix Sasaki - due 2012-11-26].
<scribe> ACTION: felix to update confidence scores input [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/19-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-299 - Update confidence scores input [on Felix Sasaki - due 2012-11-26].
felix: agreement, will add these in
felix: can we put these proposals into draft
<fsasaki> ACTION: felix to put 120 mail to provenance into the draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/19-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-300 - Put 120 mail to provenance into the draft [on Felix Sasaki - due 2012-11-26].
<fsasaki> ACTION: felix to edit tool information into the draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/19-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-301 - Edit tool information into the draft [on Felix Sasaki - due 2012-11-26].
felix: mail on allowed characters
and use to restrict markup
... looking for co-editor to put that into the draft
yves: can do this
<fsasaki> ACTION: arle to edit the 0034 mail about allowed characters [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/19-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-302 - Edit the 0034 mail about allowed characters [on Arle Lommel - due 2012-11-26].
arle: can also
felix; actions related to loc qual precis (action-295), mt-confidence (action-296) and domain
scribe: any feedback on loc qual
... looking for real life examples
phil: not sure I have use cases for it in global rules
felix; this is also a statement, but let keep action open for another week
<fsasaki> scribe: fsasaki
dave: one reason for global
... are they e.g. used for attribute text
... not sure if it would apply in this case
... for MTConfidence score it seems to be a strong case
<scribe> scribe: daveL
felix: yves reviewed these rules,
but concluded that only one pointer attribute was needed - for
... but don't need other pointer attirbutes
... and as there are no views to the contrary will remove the pointer rules
<scribe> ACTION: yves to remove pointer attributes from locquality issues as per 0103 mail [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/19-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-303 - Remove pointer attributes from locquality issues as per 0103 mail [on Yves Savourel - due 2012-11-26].
felix: thanks to jorge, yves and
others working on that section
... proposed keeping only global pointers and remove other rules and simplified local selectors
yves; only change to default for granularity value and I can do that
felix: but do we need this ins
the section6 table, since this is default when the annotation
is not present even, as with translate
... so only need to specify default in the data cat section, since it only needs a default if the annotation is present
yves: agrees, it onyl need to be added to data category
<chriLi> I would need to understand if termNote and disambiguation are meant to be orthogonal concepts
chriLi; not with this long enough to comment, but asks how disambiguation is related to existing data cats from 1.0 such at terminology
<fsasaki> scribe: fsasaki
dave: we kept them separate
... since we had use cases
... where disambiguation might feed directly into an MT process
... there is no process taht would use the terminology data category
... it was more to accomodate combination of text analytics with MT
... we may not formally be recording a phrase that is identifiyed as disambiguation
... as something that goes into the term base
joerg: there are a lot of use cases where you need to do disambiguation without terminology identification
<daveL> scribe: daveL
felix: would like to put this into the note
<scribe> ACTION: daveL to provide a note on this use of disambiguation with support from jorge [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/19-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-304 - Provide a note on this use of disambiguation with support from jorge [on David Lewis - due 2012-11-26].
chriLi: further question, when we are talking about notes, are these for an annotated version of the specification as with its1.0
felix: these are non normative notes in the spec
<chriLi> I was referring to this type of annotated document http://www.xml.com/axml/testaxml.htm
felix: but assume we will do more
work on assembling a best practice document that assmebles this
non normative stuff
... this could be an annotated version of the spec (a good idea) or a separate document need to be decided
... need to decide this is a few week, though don't have a specific opinion on this at the moment
felix: there are a number of small edits form 6-12
<scribe> ACTION: daveL to check these edits and in 0116 mail. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/19-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-305 - Check these edits and in 0116 mail. [on David Lewis - due 2012-11-26].
phil: as per mail, originally to
hold summary level info hence the name, but not tied to this
name, happy to have something similar
... for example Frederick comment on vote, which it makes sense to include
<Fredrik> I Felix, I'm here, I was more so just wondering what the status was in general.
phil: it started as 'profile' but wasn't quite the right meaning
arle; can we go back to 'summary'
<fsasaki> localizationQualitySummary vs. localizationQualityIssue
felix; suggest we rrn to this and if no objections make this change form precis to 'summary'
People participating in editing call on Tuesday
<Arle> Actually, strike me from the list.
<Arle> I have a conflict :-(
daveL on provenance, and checking how mtconfidence, confidence scores and itstools turn out, plus working in intro sections
<Yves_> +1 on Dave's list
felix: will try and with arle to
rmake sure these are uptodate and have group review of these
... going through editors notes
... thanks everyone for todau and talk to you tomorrow or next week