See also: IRC log
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> "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
fsasaki: there are lot of overdue
... 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 the M3
fsasaki: would like to close this today
fsasaki: many discussion till
... 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
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
... but not right there now
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
... any further comments on this topic?
fsasaki: proposal how to structure the discussion
<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?
tadej: how we can merge both data
... 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: 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
<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: 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?
fsasaki: poster draft moved forward to 15th feb, everybody is okay with that?
<omstefanov> bye and thanks, felix