See also: IRC log
<fsasaki> waiting for attendees ...
<Serge> test typing
<DomJones> +1 on short ;)
Felix: We can publish a feature-complete draft without addressing the edtiorial bits in section 1.
Felix: We want to make people aware of this. We discussed not using TermConfidence global. Marcis is OK with this change. Any comments?
Felix: No comments. Moving on.
Felix: We had various actions to finalize disambiguation. Main change is that now global attributes are parallel to local attributes. Thanks to Tadej for providing that.
Felix: One additional topic emerged on the weekend: casing of granularity attribute.
Felix: Mail thread shows that it might be more convenient to use lower-case values.
<fsasaki> "lexicalConcept > lexical-concept"
Felix: Changes to the draft are posted by Felix.
<fsasaki> ontologyConcept >ontology-concept
Felix: This saves the problem of
relating HTML5 and XML versions.
... Felix: Will make this change prior to making the final call. Then we can see this.
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to update casing in disambiguation. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/12/03-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-355 - Update casing in disambiguation. [on Felix Sasaki - due 2012-12-10].
Felix: People need to be aware of latest changes. See URL.
Felix: We added the provRef.
Felix: We had the question of whether the value should be 0 to 1 or 0 to 100. The draft now has 0 to 100.
Phil: Given that it is a decimal number I don't mind. I thought we were going 0 to 1, but some people (Des?) felt that 0 to 100 is more intuitive. But as long as it is decimal it doesn't really matter.
Des: This conversation was a long time ago. 0 to 100 is good because it maps to percentages, but I don't care a lot either way.
Felix: If we want to move forward and both solutions work, use 0 to 100 so we don't need to change things in the spec and slow things down.
Serge: Industry uses 1 to 10 or 1 5to 5. But anything works here.
Felix: Arle made some clarifications in the type definition. See the draft.
<fsasaki> scribe: fsasaki
arle: three changes there
... two were strictly explanatory, one was normative
... there was a clarification needed related to terminology
... daniel as an implementor asked about that
... we clarified that in the "lqissue type" table
... the 2nd change was about white space
... daniel pointed out that this type should relate to any type of white space issue
... that is in general, not only related to translation
... third change:
... daniel asked if register would apply to something like spelling, e.g. british vs. american
... I made a clarification that these would go under local violation
<scribe> scribe: arle
Felix: This is the last one. Summary is that there was a thread about the usage of the ToolRef mechanism and its differentiation from provenance. In this thread it became clear that we needed to clarify the relation.
Felix: I created an annotated document with the draft.
(Felix does screen sharing to show the annotation)
Pablo: I reviewed it and it looks fine.
Felix: We renamed toolsRef to
... This clarifies that it relates to annotations.
... We added explanatory text. It separates three different pieces of tool-related information.
Dave: I read it and it seems clear. One minor note: "should always" sounds mandatory, but maybe it doesn't matter as it is in a note. Perhaps say "should" instead of "should always."
<chriLi> Do we have a definition for "annotation"?
Dave: I think it is a good change.
Felix: We don't have a formal
... Christian, do you want a different term? This was meant as a note.
Christian: It's not about the
term itself. It's fine. More it is that if we are talking about
annotations and have three kinds of processes, we need to be
clear what we mean by "annotation."
... Wouldn't modification of textual content count as annotation?
... There are two questions: (1) should we be very explicit about what we mean by "annotation"? (2) Should that definition go in this note or elsewhere?
Felix: If we would add new normative text to explain the note, I would worry. I see the point but I would rather change the note and not add a normative definition.
Christian: I was thinking only of the non-normative explanation.
Felix: Would you like an action
to phrase such a definition (wherever we put it)? I agree it
... We don't use the term "annotation" outside of this.
Christian: I'm not sure I could work on it under the current time line.
Felix: Since it is non-normative, it would not influence our timeline. We could still go to last call. Your time line would be whenever we progress the document. There are many parts that need clarification (especially in sections 1 and 2).
Christian: Then I could do it.
<scribe> ACTION: Christian to draft non-normative definition of "annotation" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/12/03-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-356 - Draft non-normative definition of "annotation" [on Christian Lieske - due 2012-12-10].
Dave: Could we refer to Annex H to deal with this issue?
<fsasaki> "create ITS annotations;" > "create ITS annotations, see the [link to list of elements / attributes in annex H];"
Felix: That would be one way. Is what I typed what you mean?
Felix: I think some clarification
is needed, but I think that works.
... Chrstian, is 10.December good?
Christian: More time would be good.
<fsasaki> action-356: time line will be updated
<trackbot> ACTION-356 Draft non-normative definition of "annotation" notes added
Felix: Let us know when you can do it.
Felix: Last call means that we (WG) think the draft is feature complete and are looking for outside feedback until at least 10 January.
Felix: We did all actions need for publication.
Felix: Before publication we need to make the change in disambiguation case and AnnotatorsRef.
Christian: Can you briefly explain the procedure around publication/last call for comments? What does it mean? Where do comments go?
<fsasaki> "The normative sections of this document (from Section 3: Notation and Terminology to Section 8: Description of Data Categories and Appendix A: References to Appendix D: Schemas for ITS) are stable. The other, non-normative sections contain only explanatory material and will be updated in a later working draft. Hence, the Working Group especially encourages feedback on the normative...
<fsasaki> ...sections. The goal is to move out of last call without any substantive changes to these sections."
Felix: That will help those are new. See the link I supplied. That link goes to the status. See the paragraph I pasted as well.
<fsasaki> "To give feedback send your comments to email@example.com. Use "Comment on ITS 2.0 specification WD" in the subject line of your email. The archives for this list are publicly available. See also issues discussed within the Working Group and the list of changes since the previous publication."
<fsasaki> "The Last Call period ends 10 January 2013."
Felix: We will gather comments
sent to that list until 10 January. Then the WG has to come
back to all commenters to make sure that they are satisfied
with our response.
... This is something not new to some of us, but let me show what we will work with.
Felix: We create a "disposition
of comments." For each comment (even spelling mistake) and
non-normative clarification we supply what the comment was,
when it was received, etc. + what change (if any) we made. We
need to respond to these to move to the next stage if we are to
say that the public considers it complete.
... If there are normative changes, we would have to go back to last call. So that is why we don't want to have any delay.
Christian: Thanks for the review.
Dave: What happens if the reviewer isn't satisfied?
<fsasaki> "formal objection"
Felix: We can go back and forth,
but if the reviewer isn't satisfied he can file a "formal
objection" to moving forward. If nothing helps, the reviewer
has to have a call with the co-chairs and the director (Tim
Berners-Lee or designee). This rarely happens.
... They do happen, but outside of HTML5 it is rare.
Jirka: When do you need to be done? I'd like to put more documentation in the schema (not a normative change).
Felix: I can send it for publication, but I can tell the manager that there are still a few unstable files until Wednesday.
Jirka: That would be OK with me. I have put schema in the appendix. It is linked like examples.
Felix: I think that is OK. If the webmaster accepts the files it should be fine.
Jirka: It's not super important, but nice to have, and I can work on it tomorrow.
Felix: I can send the draft today, but I can tell the webmaster that we need to change certain parts that are auto-generated. We would know by today where we are on this.
Christian: On disposition of comments, is there a timing related to that?
Felix: Only related to our charter.
Felix: Our candidate
recommendation phase is that we are supposed to be out of last
call in March.
... If we have comments by 10 January, we have 2 months 3 weeks to get back and get positive answers.
... For ITS 1.0 we had 60 comments. It took a lot of effort.
... Our timeline supplies the pressure.
... Are you happy with publishing it with the explanations concerning the state and next steps?
... Is everyone OK with it?
Jirka: Did you discuss the issue of case sensitivity?
Felix: Yes. We said we would move from camel case to lc + hyphen.
<fsasaki> "lexicalConcept > lexical-concept"
<fsasaki> "ontologyConcept > ontology-concept"
Jirka: Thanks. That clarifies it.
Felix: I will make these schema
... Who wants it to be published?
Various: We do.
Felix: Silence is agreement, but
positive votes are good too.
... I am happy that we have a feature-complete set for ITS 2.0.
<Pedro> x1 :-)
<dF> I need to run, guys.. Thanks everyone for your good work!
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to prepare last call publication. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/12/03-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-357 - Prepare last call publication. [on Felix Sasaki - due 2012-12-10].
Dom: Reminder about testing-suite webinar tomorrow.
Christian: About the last call. Of course I have full confidence in your procedural knowledge. Do we need to ask for abstains or objections?
Felix: Normally it is enough to record an affirmative vote.
Christian: I abstain.
<philr> I vote to publish.
Pedro: What about the deadlines Arle mentioned?
Felix: Let's go through next steps first.
Felix: We need feedback from
... Currently the outside comment list is empty. Use the email draft I posted to get reviewers.
... Can you ask for individuals to provide feedback?
... Type your name if you can ask people individually.
<daveL> I can ask people at WeLocalise, Alchemy and Symantec
Christian: Is there a way to avoid us all asking the same people for review?
Arle: I will ask IBM, Lionbridge, SDL.
<Yves_> I should be able to ask comments to a few Localization tools developers.
<Pedro> Pedro, I can ask also a couple of people
<shaunm> + q
<fsasaki> scribe: Arle_
<philr> I'll need to discuss who I talk to with my Business Development Managers
Felix: People are to submit names to Arle, Felix, Nieves by Wednesday. They will respond on overlap by Friday.
Christian: [Arle missed the question]
Felix: We will send a notification to other chairs. We also have a requirement to send an announcement to the XLIFF TC because our charter specifies that.
Shaun: What people would be appropriate to invite?
<Clemens> sorry, I've to go to another meeting
Felix: The current draft is not
stable for explanatory sections, so it doesn't make sense to
invite high-level business people. We need people who can
provide technical details.
... People in localization, LT, etc. can provide feedback.
... Anyone who might apply ITS 2.0 in a technical sense.
Shaun: I talk to two open-source localization tool developing groups. They are not implementers now, but may be.
Felix: It makes sense to me.
Contact those who might implement and who would need to know
... I focused on technical aspects. We need to make sure it is easy to integrate ITS.
... In their tools
... I will nudge some of your to get more people for comments.
... One issue: we need a native-speaker check on the document.
Felix: Although we are in last
call, I propose that we continue calls on 10 December at
... We can discuss outreach and EC issues.
Arle: We might talk to Serge about Localization Professionals.
Serge: It would go to 18,000
people on LinkedIn.
... About 45% are client-side, 30% LSP. So you need to be particularly clear about what you want.
<tadej> ./me I need to leave now, best regarrds
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to work on Localization Professionals announcement draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/12/03-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-358 - Work on Localization Professionals announcement draft [on Felix Sasaki - due 2012-12-10].
<fsasaki> ACTION: felix to prepare localization professionals linked in mail draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/12/03-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-359 - Prepare localization professionals linked in mail draft [on Felix Sasaki - due 2012-12-10].
Pedro: Regarding the deadlines,
there are three things. (1) Is there a difference between those
that are due already versus those that are ongoing?
... (2) For ongoing things we can send something by the 10th.
... (3) For tasks that involve other task leaders, we need help from them to prepare this.
Felix: Clarification. We know
about the Month 12 report. The idea is not that Arle writes it,
but rather that it is a template. We need it by the 10th for
the report. But note that this it not a statement about a final
outcome or to provide all technical details.
... We really need a few paragraphs about the current state. This will be public. Please expect there to be public readers.
... Two aspects: (1) reporting; (2) something easy to understand. Perhaps you can reuse some use-case text from Prague meeting.
... Some people didn't write anything yet who may not have their own implementation, but we need information on everything.
<fsasaki> scribe: fsasaki
arle: if there is something this
is not relevant yet
... you can ommit that
... the report is just to re-assure that things are going as we intend
pedro: mail arle sent about the
action is not only about work packages leaders
... but for all task leaders, and the contributors
yves: what should the
... send something individually, or to whom?
arle: I assigned the actions to
the task leaders
... so make that clear with your task leader
<Arle_> Felix: It you look at out deliverables sections, some task leaders will need help. I encourage, especially for Cocomore, don't wait to ask for information. Please send information on to the task leaders.
<Arle_> .. Please be proactive.
<Arle_> Clemens: Thanks. I'll send an email to remind people.
<Arle_> Dave: I've been through the process recently, but the Commission had page-length restrictions.
<Arle_> Arle: I believe it isn't super particular.
<Arle_> ACTION: Felix to confirm page restrictions in report with Kimmo. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/12/03-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-360 - Confirm page restrictions in report with Kimmo. [on Felix Sasaki - due 2012-12-10].
<Arle_> Dave: Do we need to provide finance updates/cost claims or does that need to wait until after the end of the year?
<Arle_> ACTION: Felix to confirm dates for financial updates [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/12/03-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-361 - Confirm dates for financial updates [on Felix Sasaki - due 2012-12-10].
<Arle_> Pedro: Can we have more time than Dec. 10?
<Arle_> Felix: Yes, the deadline is short. The goal is to get the report done before Christmas. But the good news is that we don't need super detailed information. That link has probably enough information. We might be able to repurpose that already. A few more days would be OK.
<Arle_> .. We don't need a lot of material, but rather soon. Could we say 12th or 13th for you?
<Arle_> Pedro: For me it is fine, but it depends on the speed of the answers.
<Arle_> Arle: I asked for a best-case level of detail.
<Arle_> Pedro: I will ask for two paragraphs from everyone.
<Arle_> Felix: Who are you waiting for answers from?
<Arle_> Pedro: Declan, Daniel, Phil. VistaTEC is the one I don't know about and can't comment on.
felix: I'll take care of vistaTec
<Arle_> ACTION: Felix to clarify VistTEC status for annual report. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/12/03-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-362 - Clarify VistTEC status for annual report. [on Felix Sasaki - due 2012-12-10].
<Arle_> Pedro: Clarify for action 3.2
<Arle_> .. I will take care of Lucy and DCU this week.