Test suite update

<fsasaki> http://tinyurl.com/its20-testsuite-dashboard

fsasaki: tomorrow M3 for the Testsuite, only 45% coverage currently
... are there any problems for the implementors?

david: should be fine till monday

phil: two new files are added and these will be added till next week

<fsasaki> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgIk0-aoSKOadG5HQmJDT2EybWVvVC1VbnF5alN2S3c#gid=0

<fsasaki> "31st January 2013: M3 - Test files completely run. To be moved forward at Prague f2f."

pnietoca: should we finish 100% for M3?

fsasaki: only 1 or 2 files left would be okay, but only 80% should be discussed

pnietoca: 100% should be okay for linguaserve, but have to talk to mauricio

<fsasaki> felix: please come back to me within this week if 100% from your organisaiton is *not* ok

Action item health check

<fsasaki> https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/open?sort=due

fsasaki: there are lot of overdue action items
... most of items are related for editing
... should any action item be discussed?

dF: should the disambiguation be tested till M3?
... because lot of changes are expected there

fsasaki: no need to do testing for disambiguation
... for the M3

Discuss domain issue

<fsasaki> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0022.html

<fsasaki> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0182.html

fsasaki: would like to close this today

<fsasaki> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0191.html

fsasaki: many discussion till now
... are there any comments for the last proposal?

<Yves_> looks basically fine

fsasaki: link to showcase should be moved, because wiki will probably removed at some point

chriLi: looking at the proposal right now

olaf: suggestion could ? that be moved to best practices?

<pnietoca> I replied this morning to this issue http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0192.html

<Yves_> Just one note: "It is, however, not possible to assign" : it's technically 'possible' but it's not meant to be used that way.

<daveL> note there's a place holder for best practice docs on wiki at:

<pnietoca> Felix has a point maybe a link to the wiki is not the most appropriate

<daveL> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Best_Practice_Documents

fsasaki: we discussed in prague that we will write maybe more of one of best practices

<omstefanov> thanks, dave, for the Best Practice Docs page

chriLi: we are on a good way
... but not right there now

<fsasaki> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0184.html

chriLi: yves example should be added to the note, to show how a MT should handle it

<fsasaki> "For example you have a mapping as this:" - Yves' example

<fsasaki> in above mail

<fsasaki> ACTION: christian to make re-write of note for domain, taking Yves' example at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0184.html and jörgs proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0184.html into account [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/30-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-434 - Make re-write of note for domain, taking Yves' example at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0184.html and jörgs proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0184.html into account [on Christian Lieske - due 2013-02-06].

df: its just a clarification? not a normative change?

fsasaki: it is a clarification
... any further comments on this topic?

disambiguation vs term

<fsasaki> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Jan/0246.html

fsasaki: proposal how to structure the discussion

<fsasaki> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Jan/0239.html

<fsasaki> <span its-tan-confidence="0.7" its-tan-class-ref="http://nerd.eurecom.fr/ontology#Place"<http://nerd.eurecom.fr/ontology#Place> its-tan-ident-ref="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dublin"<http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dublin> its-term="no">Dublin</span>

fsasaki: start the discussion today, here is another proposal from marcis
... do we need standoff markup?

<fsasaki> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Jan/0246.html

tadej: how we can merge both data categories?
... if we merge them, than we can handle both independently?

fsasaki: do we really need to handle both categories independently?
... there is no need for multilayer annotations, if we drop this

tadej: don't have any objection, but marcis is not on the call today

daveL: there are people who would have both categories separately

<fsasaki> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Jan/0248.html

fsasaki: lot of discussion on the topic of levels, that would be a change for disambiguation

tadej: that was my proposal to drop levels, which swalter agreed

fsasaki: this would be a huge step forward for the discussion to merge both categories
... is everyone fine with dropping the levels?

tadej: we can add a best practice for the case that someone wants to point to a external resource

dLewis: agrees

<chriLi> Values for "qualifier": lexical, term, termCandidate, ontological-class, ontological-entity;

<fsasaki> christian's inital proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Jan/0014.html

<fsasaki> <span its-tan-confidence="0.7" its-tan-class-ref="http://nerd.eurecom.fr/ontology#Place" its-tan-ident-ref="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dublin" its-tan-type=" http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-2275">Dublin</span>

chriLi: with dropping level we mean dropping these values?

fsasaki: we want to drop the complete field "qualifier"
... nobody really used this field in their workflow

tadej: is there a case where people can't to this with rdfa/a or other methods - and this is not the case for us

dF: is the level a important part of the multilayer topic?

fsasaki: you can't talk about the one, without talking about the other one
... should we keep its-tan-type?

chriLi: we should drop it

fsasaki: some consensus today - following some examples

<fsasaki> <span its-tan-confidence="0.7" its-tan-class-ref="http://nerd.eurecom.fr/ontology#Place" its-tan-ident-ref="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Dublin" >Dublin</span>

fsasaki: this would be example without the tan-type and level

<chriLi> You may want to add its-tan-term="yes"

fsasaki: we can't discuss this further because marcis is missing today
... if we only rename attributes, then we maybe don't need another last call
... this wouldn't influence the data category terminology

<fsasaki> ACTION: tadej to take care of disambig -> tan examples [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/01/30-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-435 - Take care of disambig -> tan examples [on Tadej Štajner - due 2013-02-06].

<omstefanov> I think we need to keep careful watch of Mārcis' comments in 0239.html warning of what happens if we merge terminology and disabiguation (or whatever it is called).

fsasaki: we don't rewrite the section, till the terminology discussion is done
... marcis should be at the monday call, so the discussion will be continued on monday
... any other comments?

poster draft

fsasaki: poster draft moved forward to 15th feb, everybody is okay with that?

<omstefanov> bye and thanks, felix