See also: IRC log
yves: there was the question
wherer MT Confidence should be restricted to self generated
score or not
... felix made change after the discussion
scribe: would you have any comments? Time to look at it? That is the current text
phil: didn't have time to look at
the text, but at the thread
... I had in my mind something generated by the MT engine
... but I am happy enought to broaden this, as some people said in the thread
... as long as we are careful about the definition
yves: any other comments?
Yves_, comment from felix on IRC: the change I made was only removing the "self reported" part and adding above note
Yves_: MT Confidence still means the same, but it is not linked only to the MT engine
Yves reading the note in the link above
Yves: the note makes the
distinction between the two types of generators for confidence
... so it seems everybody is ok with the change
yves, where was no tracker issue for this, but I (felix) have added an item in the change log
yves: several entries in XLIFF mapping
yves: mail is about update of LQI and ...
dF: I had dropped of, what did you hear last? You didn't hear what I said about MT Confidence
yves: no - but go ahead
dF: tools should rather use lq rating than mt confidence for information that is not self generated
phil: one thing that came up in
relation to broadening mt confidence
... we don't have a standoff version of mt confidence
... not sure whether that would be an issue
dF: this category doesn't need
standoff because it does not need mashing
... if you broaden the definition you open the use case to provide conflicting confidence scores
... we never intended to have standoff because we said this is self confidence
... one should use rating because, it has standoff
yves: it doesn't, only ITS lqi and
provenacne have standoff
... what you said is the same for rating
... you can use different engines but there is only one way to mark it up, since there is no standoff for ITS rating
dF: don't you feel that third party conformance is for rating?
yves: I looked at the example of
... the value they are getting is the same like the mt confidence self reported
... to me lq rating is much more like a composite index based on many things
... that is much more linked to conformance and human voting
dF: we have one issue or the
... usage of multiple scores either on confidence or rating
yves: don't think that this is a
... don't think that these data categories will be used a lot
phil: isn't this tied up with MQM / QTLaunchpad?
yves: LQI is, not sure about rating
phil: will QTLP have a rating?
yves: don't think so
... the question is: if you have a value like quest where should it go
phil: is it a problem to have either mt
confidence or lqi?
... until we have lots of use cases
... or do we need a new quality type
yves: looking at declan's feedback he was ok with result of quest as an MT confidence value
dF: quest or other MT metrics are
closer to MT confidence
... if you are an MT enginge owner it is breaking of transaction if you allow for overriding self reported confidence with a third party tool
yves: this is processing related
yves_, can I say something?
yves_: people will not read the spec and will just put an MT confidence score
phil: don't feel strongly enough to stand in the way of broadening this
<Yves_> felix: to dF, would current draft be ok?
<Yves_> .. and could you check with MT providers if it's ok this way
<Yves_> .. we need more feedback
<Yves_> .. I am asking you if we can move forward with current version
<Yves_> .. we could reverse the change if needed during PR - it is informative only
<Yves_> .. there is no testing impact
<Yves_> df: it's not substantive
<Yves_> .. so change would be ok
<Yves_> second quaestion: what's the current version
<Yves_> .. self-reported? or not?
<Yves_> felix: not self-reported
<Yves_> .. action for david would be to check whether allowing non self reported MT confidence should be reverted or not
<Yves_> felix: would current version be ok?
<Yves_> df: either is fine
<Yves_> felix: then let's use the current one
<Yves_> .. and get an action for david to gather the feedback from MT engine people
<scribe> ACTION: dfilip to get feedback on the MT Confidence broadening during PR - due 29 August [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/07/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-559 - get feedback on the MT Confidence broadening during PR [on David Filip - due 2013-08-29].
yves: first on text analysis
yves introducing on text analysis mapping
yves: any comments / objections against the mapping?
yves: now lq rating
yves: no resolution on that so
far - also question on phil
... do we want to allow granularity for lq rating
... or have it only on the xliff target level
... the ITS 2.0 definition does not say "you should or should not go on the word level"
phil: discussed that last week
des: what would be the case against this?
dF: in source content, no a sub
... lq rating can appear. So we shouldn't prevent that in XLIFF
... we can discourage it, but it shoud be allowed as a mapping
yves: why would we even discourage it?
dF: it would compete with terminology information
yves: disagree - in term confidence is avail., it is very different from a vote
des: you could use it to mark up terminology
dF: you would not mark
terminology but terminology errors
... that is different - you could still have terminology markup
yves: confidence in terminology does not say "it is a good translation"
dF: so we drop the language about local level
yves: agree - will make the
... there is not a lot to change anyway
... now MT confidence again
yves: now the XLIFF mapping topic for MT confidence
... we had a discussion about origion XLIFF attribute
... we discussed that in bled
... we decided not to overload the entry
... this linked to the question we had before
... when multiple engines have a score, what to do
... there is no resolution, having standoff here would be a major change
christian: this would be something we would put on our lists of enhancement requests for ITS2?
... how to put that on the list
felix: would put that on the ITS IG wiki for the time being
will have a pointer to the location soon
yves: now locale filter mapping
hi yves, all, I would propose to put the issues and proposed features here http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/IssuesAndProposedFeatures . Currently it is focused on ITS 1.0, but we can update it with proposals for ITS 2.0
yves describing the locale filter mapping
yves: nobody has made a comment no this one so far
dF: wonder - there might be more
... we should think of valid transformations
... what should be guidance to get from one to the other
... ITS information is not longer available
... the extractor with extended information - what are you doing
yves: you merge the target
david: it no longer contains the extended information
yves: why would you need the extended information?
david: you expect to merge back
into multiple languages
... if the extractor does not define a target, the LSP still will need to define a target
yves: if they understand ITS - otherwise you cannot process the file
pedro joining the meeting
discussion about xliff - ITS extraction and merging
yves: think that has not to do with the mapping, it is an XLIFF problem
<Yves_> ACTION: davidF to draft guidance for second processing of Locale Filter when target is not defined in first processor in wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/07/24-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action05]
yves: one question on termInfoRef
is still open
... we both came to an agreement on that
felix: I agreeded with the proposal to say that there is no hard wired definition what is available then one resolves termInfoRef
... if you have disagreement comment on that asap
... otherwise no other mapping issues currently
<pnietoca> thank you bye!
dF: next week we may be able to use this gotomeeting again
yves: thanks all, bye