See also: IRC log
Felix wants us to document high level cases before Rome
DaveL asks Leroy for updates since Monday meeting
Leroy: ? is committing 4 data categories, we're at 59%, up from 50%
need all to provide updates, esp. those who haven't got their 80%, esp. UL and Shawn
Tadej says he's renamed several attributes, will break tests. Wants feedback
mail Don sent out this morning about M4 and M5. This may take down percentage even more.
involves branching between conformance testing vs showing community that we have something useful (in Rome)
Rome demos will not really affect percentages of what is completed to meeting milestones
concern is that if we ask for metadata, while we can demo that we can open and read files, things may not be completely there
demos may show things that are not complete test cases
for the EU project, we'll also have a review in Rome, and we need to meet their milestones
the w3c milestones give us a bit more time
overall test delays need to be reported to Felix so that some deadlines can be adjusted (within limits)
we need to understand that outreach effort (in Rome) is to demo useful work, vs. meeting EU and w3c deadlines/milestones
Felix recommends that we update the high level wiki page to align with what the current state of ITS2 is
and then use part of this as a model (before Rome).
Needed for EU but also good for public (at Rome).
This needs to match with posters (for which deadline is 15 Feb).
scribe: for Rome.
Felix is suggesting updating the high level summary by 18 February
Christian: Felix also brought to the table the suggestion that in the main specifications we want to refer to the use cases.
For this we need to stabilize URIs. This can be done by publishing a recommendation.
DaveL says we can do this. Take same approach we did before.
DaveL says the WG did this for the requirements document
DaveL asks whether anyone has any objections to use the simple MT cases?
DaveL then says we'd need to go through these to compare with how the cases match the text.
chriLi offers to take over this task if the partners have done the update a couple of days before the 18th
chriLi says to meet this deadline we need input from partners 3 days earlier.
chriLi points out that 18 Feb is needed publication date
we ask people to provide by 15 Feb (same day as posters) to update the high level summary page
scribe: to enable the result to be publishable by 18 Feb.
<daveL> action; dlewis6 to confirm dates for use case document publishing
<daveL> ACTION: dlewis6 to confirm dates for use case document publishing [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/02/06-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-443 - Confirm dates for use case document publishing [on David Lewis - due 2013-02-13].
<scribe> agenda: issue 63
Phip has indicated that his company (DI) is interested in consuming this, and has another company that will provide these.
Phil (not Phip)...
<daveL> topic; Issue 75, clarification of applicability of domain mapping to a multidomain Post from christian
also, point from pablo on referencing wiki material http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2013Feb/0020.html
chriLi and DaveL asking whether anyone has any objections
else will be edited into specs
scribe: will be done through last call tracking page, by co-chairs (on basis of chriLi's text)
Pablo points out that text is fine, but link will change (note taken: by DaveL). Felix will arrange to copy into persistent URL.
<Yves_> There is some small fixes to work out
<Yves_> (sorry ca't talk)
<Yves_> mostly the regex work and we just need a few adjustements
<daveL> topic; terminology and disambiguation issue-68 action for Tadej
Tadej outlines discussion to merge the two (terminology and disabig).
In the end, no merge but
disabiguation is simplified
<scribe> dropped graularity
renamed to text analysis (short version: Tan) instead of disabiguation
this involves not too much work for implementors, mainly renaming
<Marcis> Tadej, in the e-mail you sent there is an attachment that says: "text-analysis-annotation" - should the annotation be dropped?! I agree to Yves who said that annotation mighy be redundant
also dropping disambigClassRef
no changes for terminology, so still backwards compatible.
DaveL asks for comments from others involved
Marcis says, if I understand correctly, no change to terminology
it is important to drop the -annotation suffix.
Tadej says he'll correct examples
<joerg> Does this then resolve issue-68?
Marcis says, as it now stands, issue 68 is resolved
chriLi says the comment of Marcis is very relevalant.
chriLi asks whether the data cat terminology should be deprecated
<Marcis> Correction - I asked whether the issue would be resolved by the changes or not?!
sorry, Marcis, thanks for correction.
<joerg> Why should terminology being deprecated? We still have different use cases.
Marcis says that as it now stands, the text-analysis data category does not cover all that the terminology category currently covers.
chriLi says he, Tadej and Marcis volunteered to see if they could come up with an "enhanced" text-analysis category that allow coverage for "term"
to subsume all the missing items from terminology
<tadej> its:term=yes -> its:tanClassRef="nerd:Object"
<Yves_> local term='no' can be used to override a global rule.
DaveL asks what the difference is between its:term=no vs no term= entry
DaveL summarizes: Marcis still sees a use case for having the capability for "term=yes/no", whether that is in a separate data category or in the tan(ex. disambig) category.
DaveL says you don't support the possibility to capture BOTH an automated process and input from a terminologist.
DaveL asks how critical merging the two categories is
chriLi agrees with changes to former disambig data category, but suggests that we should come up with a solution to cover points still only in term category,
with the view to deprecating the term data category
Tadej believes this is possible
DaveL asks who will be avail. for Monday call: Tadej yes, Marcis yes, Christian: no