See also: IRC log
fsasaki: What is the nature of
the second milestone?
... can you summarize?
<fsasaki> see milestones also at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgIk0-aoSKOadG5HQmJDT2EybWVvVC1VbnF5alN2S3c#gid=0
DomJones1: M2 is less
... M3 and on are stronger, more formal
Yves_: nothing to add to Dom's summary
philr: I would have approached it
in a meaningfully different way
... does everybody need to implement all the categories?
fsasaki: the minimum is 2
implementations that produce the test suite output
... as discussed, it is for demonstrating interoperability
... we need the extra effort of interop testing to show that the implementations do the same across scenarios
fsasaki: the recorded commitments are for the test suite
philr: are there strong rulings re parsing methods?
fsasaki: there are no such rules, just input and output files, no questions for your methodology in between
<omstefanov> will there be any independent running of these tests?
leroy: people asked if they can
modify test suite files
... can correct obvious errors, but discuss anything other before changing
chriLi: more general question, any decision for using test case, mandate for use cases?
fsasaki: test suite is w3c
... CR phase should start in March
... test suite is critical for proving interoperability during CR
... any other questions?
Des: question on timing..
... I could not do it within the publicly given time frame
fsasaki: are you referring to your implementation effort?
fsasaki: Do not worry, with
exception of LQ Precis, all categories are covered by other
... continue contributing tests
<DomJones1> Wanted to ask / minute that if any implementors have any issues with keeping to test-suite dates could they please let Dominic know as soon as possible. This way we can work with you to match resources and the time frame.
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to nudge data category owners asking for test suite contributions by the end of the year [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/26-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-319 - Nudge data category owners asking for test suite contributions by the end of the year [on Felix Sasaki - due 2012-12-03].
checking of global rules did not progress
<fsasaki> "100 (inclusive) with higher values indicating a better score"
fsasaki: It is hard to read,
contains nested rules, not enough work here, not enough test
... only Vistatec and UL committing to test this, this is thin
... looking for a champion, no need to actually edit the spec, but needs work on exact specification text
philr: I feel it has a role to
... there was a vision for far reaching mechanism, eventually non-normative..
... I am not up to speed with tool ref, which might be the issue
... I will try my best to move this by the end of this week
... I agree it must be dropped if little progress this week
fsasaki: E.g. readiness was
dropped due to lack of consensus
... this might mean tabling till the 2.1
<fsasaki> ACTION: phil to work on lq precis to see if we can keep it in the spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/26-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-320 - Work on lq precis to see if we can keep it in the spec [on Phil Ritchie - due 2012-12-03].
Arle: offering help to philr to work on the category by the end of this week
philr: accepting help offer..
fsasaki: creating action 320
Jirka: Should I add it to the schema?
fsasaki: This cannot wait for the
next week because Jirla is working on the normative
... we would need hard commitment or drop it
... results by tomorrow, or so.., would that work if you get results be wednesday, Jirka?
philr: wed lunch time?
<Jirka> yep, wed is ok
Arle and philr agreeing working time Wed morning, forming LQP task force
fsasaki: last mail from Yves
Yves_: we need to have this
attribute specified for some categories
... like mtConfidence
... thing getting hairy on the global side, becuase it can have different inheritance behavior to the category
... it might be OK on local level only, but you could not address attributes
... we might rule out a bunch of formats.. we seem to be running in circles
fsasaki: another proposal by Dave
daveL: scared by global rules
here, i.e. agreement with Yves basically
... argument, you need it cases where schema cannot be changed, might not need it anyway
<chriLi> What's the reference to Yves' mail?
daveL: local expression of tool ref might inherit to attributes, unclear if we say so.
fsasaki: Can we close the issue as is
Yves_: the caveat is that in mtConfdence you would need both global and local
fsasaki: It would be soved with a note? we even do not need a note..
<fsasaki> close issues-42
<fsasaki> close issue-42
<trackbot> ISSUE-42 Tool and confidence related information is similar for mtConfidence, textAnalysisAnnotation, quality closed
felix: open topics are editorial isssues, and xliff mapping, so nothing that would prevent us from moving to last calls
fsasaki: I formally invite people to express any issues with normative parts of the spec for LC
<trackbot> ACTION-286 -- Shaun McCance to put data category table into non-normative appendix in the spec -- due 2012-11-19 -- OPEN
<fsasaki> ACTION: felix to take over shauns action itemt on data category table [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/26-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-321 - Take over shauns action itemt on data category table [on Felix Sasaki - due 2012-12-03].
fsasaki: taking over Shaun's action item to create data category table. Next action-297 Address Query Language related Ed notes in draft.
fsasaki: question about
normativeness of schema
... RelaxNG is the normative
... XML schema will be mostly automatically generated, informative
<trackbot> ACTION-314 -- Yves Savourel to check global rules for provenance -- due 2012-11-27 -- CLOSED
fsasaki: Yves did that. Is there a need to chenge anything in the spec?
Yves_: Looking at the examples.
issues with mapping to XLIFF
toolref and pointers cannot be mapped onto XLIFF
<fsasaki> scribe: fsasaki
davidF: if I map MT confidence to
... and I don't know who produdced that
... I lost all information
yves: not saying you cannot put
... but you cannot do that with a pointer
dave: Yves is reffering to
... have to think about that
<dF> DaveL: the issue os with toolref in Provenace not the Tool Reference element
dave: will look at it tonight, we can discuss at the call tomorrow
<scribe> scribe: dF
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: you are right
that this might be the only major point for ponters, it might
be otherwise good to get rid of pointers
... this will be adressed in the editting call totmorrow
<fsasaki> ACTION: felix to make sure next call we discuss poiner issues for proveancne and toolsRef [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/26-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-322 - Make sure next call we discuss poiner issues for proveancne and toolsRef [on Felix Sasaki - due 2012-12-03].
fsasaki: This is to make sure
that the group has follow up to the editting call
... harmonization of interval 0-1 iclusive, mial posted by df
fsasaki: report on number of
small changes to the spec
... is there someone on the call who was through them, or volunteers to go through them
<fsasaki> ACTION: daveL to check edits at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Nov/0202.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/26-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-323 - Check edits at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Nov/0202.html [on David Lewis - due 2012-12-03].
Yves_: Id id not see anything controversial, covered everything but did not go into detail in all
taking roll call for the partcipation in edittting call Tue and Wed
<Arle> Arle: Tuesday and Wednesday
<Jirka> jirka - probably tue, wed and thu
<fsasaki> david: I can do the 1st hour tomorrow
<fsasaki> .. and wednesday the call
dF: I can make Wed
fsasaki, start meeting with splitting up and fork parallel editting
scribe: meeting agian in an hour or so.., depend on how many have editting set up
daveL: might have issues with too many instances of goto, but might do also skype
fsasaki: editting can be done fully offline, the others can make a coffee break
omstafanov: what about independent testing?
fsasaki: what do you mean by independent?
omstefanov: the tests are designed by implmeneters, does any one verify if ENLASO indeed conforms?
fsasaki: the idea is that the
tests and results are public
... it is OK to base test results on the same library across implementations, but this all will be reviewed by w3c mgmt
omstefanov: thanks, this is answered..
DomJones1: We hope that the transparent test suite will attract independent implementers (not now in the group)
chriLi: ... I started going through the spec, normative and non-normative.. Is it a good time to post my commments on the non-normative part of the spec now?
fsasaki: Christian is going
through explanatory sections, but we only need to stabilize the
normative parts now..
... about "what is the time for feedback on non-normative" parts: I would say as soon as possible, but it might just take after the last call draft publication before we come back to comments
fsasaki: Danile is impmenting
... Arle, does this discussion reveal any changes?
Arle: It does not require
... just explanatory
fsasaki: discussion to continue on the list
fsasaki: AOB? Nothing
<Pedro> Felix, can you on the micro
The mlw-lt call is adjourned, but everybody can stay, no secret discussion here
The following is only important for the LT-Web partners, re end of year report
<fsasaki> firstname.lastname@example.org arle, felix
fsasaki: send everything to the memberlist, and put Nieves, Arle, and Felix three people into CC. NIeves will put the presentatinos and other material into the presentations archive, see link below. Send not only outreach material, but also slides etc.
<chriLi> We mentioned www.multilingualweb.eu in tcWorld 2012 http://conferences.tekom.de/fileadmin/tx_doccon/slides/115_Highlights_Holes_in_and_Hopes_for_the_Multilingual_Web_.pdf
<fsasaki> yes, chriLi, above presentation counts too.
fsasaki: It is good to include stuff by not funded parties
fsasaki: Arle is going to preopare an HTML webpage for the report.
Pedro: we need more
homogeneity in the report
... we should get a template, so that the content is easily parsed
<fsasaki> ACTION: arle to create template for report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/11/26-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-324 - Create template for report [on Arle Lommel - due 2012-12-03].
Arle: It will be OK if you stick to basic HTML, we can style it with CSS
Pedro: timeframe for LC publication?
<fsasaki> this will be the URI of the draft. Publication date will be 6 December: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/
fsasaki: the time frame of the LC
is early next week, I can give you the URI now, see above