MLW-LT WG -- 27 Nov 2013

outreach script again

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Nov/0063.html

elena: nice example of term variants
... in the LEMON model we can account for these

<Arle> ITS 2.0 Youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/W3CITS20

<leroy> discussing both approaches for readiness in the interest group

<leroy> going to use linguaserve definition and spec for readiness

<leroy> daveL: lets go through the readiness spec defined by linguaserve and do some corrections

<leroy> daveL: discussing why readiness is extensible and why no other category is

<leroy> pedro discussing local usage of readiness

<leroy> pablo

<leroy> dave and pablo discussing about the defaults of local usage of readiness

<pnietoca> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2013Aug/att-0029/Readiness-CMSExtension_v01.docx

<leroy> pnietoca posts link for linguaserve spec for readiness

<leroy> pnietoca and daveL discussing ready-to-process attribute and the usage of a comma separated list

<leroy> daveL discussing the usage of m extension from unicode standard and its potential usage for encoding the values in the ready-to-process list

<leroy> daveL: lots of other ones though that could be investigated

<leroy> daveL: but the m extension from unicode maybe best

<leroy> discussion starts about processPointer

<leroy> daveL: do linguaserve use process pointer

<leroy> pnietoca: we don't use it a lot but it can be useful

<leroy> daveL: it doesn't do the work of a pointer as defined in the standard

<leroy> daveL: we could rename processPointer

<leroy> processPointer was renamed

<leroy> discussion starts on revised

<leroy> daveL: do we need revised?

<leroy> pedro: we could use version control

<leroy> daveL: revised is tricky with yes/no it will work like a lock

readiness again

<leroy> daveL: an approach similar to wordpress to just flag revsions in documents

<leroy> daveL: we could rename revised to update

<leroy> pnietoca: ok

<leroy> daveL: change yes/no to int value

<leroy> omstefanov: int value may not be a good idea lots of other types of CMS systems

<leroy> pedro: not the big of a worry

<leroy> Arle: what about using a timestamp?

<leroy> omstefanov: full timestamp is best UTC preferable or whatever timezone they are in

<leroy> revised changed to revised-update

<leroy> time stamping agreed

<Arle> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601

<Arle> Example: 2013-11-26T19:11:23+00:00

<Arle> or 2013-11-26T19:11:23+05:30

<omstefanov> see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601 where you have clear choices

<leroy> discussion about the time format and timezones

<leroy> action on pnietoca to look into ISO_8601

<trackbot> Error finding 'on'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/users>.

<pnietoca> ACTION: pnietoca to check on ISO 8601 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/11/27-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-587 - Check on iso 8601 [on Pablo Nieto Caride - due 2013-12-04].

<leroy> discussion on ready-to-publish

<omstefanov> Combined date and time in UTC: should either be "2013-11-26T19:11:23+00:00" (for UTC/GMT) or "2013-11-26T19:11:23+01:00" (for current Madrid time) or simply 2013-11-26T19:11Z (where Z=Zulu=UTC)

<leroy> pedro: ready-to-publish is redundant we can remove it from the spec

<leroy> discussion starts on priority

<leroy> daveL: why do we have a range

<leroy> pedro: it is important to see the priority of a document for a client

<leroy> daveL adding in example of priorityto readiness spec

<leroy> discussion on ready-at and complete-by

<leroy> daveL: we need to look at what type of time stamping will be done which will be done by pablo

<leroy> pedro and daveL discussing about how much content is being translating between languages and tracking it

<leroy> daveL: could be track in prov in ITS

<leroy> daveL: look at standard encoding for tracking translation work

<leroy> daveL: would be nice if it was same as prov

<leroy> daveL: main part of editing complete maybe we could add it to interest group this week

<leroy> discussion on default value list

<leroy> for processPointer

<leroy> daveL: this is the Activity model we are using in CNGL which covers all the interactions that occur within the group

<leroy> daveL showed model to show how activities could be recorded using a linked model and provenance

<leroy> processPointer defaults values show default possible activities

<leroy> daveL: it is tricky to define this activity model

<leroy> pedro: the usage of a similar model in provenance would be key

<leroy> question about where default values from processPointer came from

<leroy> pedro: it was developed in a talks about readiness

<leroy> pedro: the list was quite long but was narrowed down over time

<leroy> daveL: processname could be reviewed again

<leroy> fsasaki: there is a lot of work in the provenance area on this

<leroy> fsasaki: important to hook this into this process

<leroy> daveL: hard to define classification but work has been done in CNGL in the contentprocess model

<leroy> query has this content model be from CNGL been used

<leroy> daveL: no

<leroy> asun: work has been done in provenance standard

<leroy> asun: should be looked at for 2020

<leroy> asun: usage of provenance and workflows is key

<leroy> daveL: we should look into that with you asun.

<leroy> daveL: I will post it on the ITS wiki

http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/IssuesAndProposedFeatures

http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/IssuesAndProposedFeatures#Proposal:_.22Readiness.22_data_category

<leroy> going for coffee break

ITS ontolog and conversion to NIF

http://www.w3.org/TR/its20/#conversion-to-nif

wiki clean up

http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/

http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Main_Page

http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/File:D1.2.2_M24.pdf

dave: only sec. 4

<scribe> ACTION: nieves to convert http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/File:D1.2.2_M24.pdf to wikitext and put that as main wiki page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/11/27-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-588 - Convert http://www.w3.org/international/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/file:d1.2.2_m24.pdf to wikitext and put that as main wiki page [on Nieves Sande - due 2013-12-04].

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: plus executive summary, part "as follows: ..."

<Nieves> great!

thansk a lot, Nieves, in advance

ITS IG main page

http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/Main_Page

have call the wednesday's every 3-4 weeks, usual time (2 p.m. CET)

http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/Main_Page#Work_items.2C_issues.2C_actions

include link to readiness

<scribe> ACTION: felix to clean up ITS IG wiki main page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/11/27-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-589 - Clean up its ig wiki main page [on Felix Sasaki - due 2013-12-04].

ITS ontology

http://www.w3.org/TR/its20/#conversion-to-nif

http://www.w3.org/TR/its20/examples/nif/EX-nif-conversion-output.ttl

dave: two remaining issues
... need to document the ontology
... the source definition is in the ITS2 spec, and their are grouped according to functionality
... there is a copy of the ITS2 ontology on the NIF site, good place to document the ontology
... idea would be to put comments into NIF and generate HTML doc from that
... need to agree how we want to add the docu:
... have a description for each attribute, e.g. just take definition of taIdentRef in the turtle comment
... but also need a line that says: this corresponds to the "taIdentRef" atribute which is part of the "TA" data category in the ITS spec
... I can take a copy of the turtle and work with that
... and pass it around to comment

ITS ontology is here: http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its/rdf-content/its-rdf.rdf

dave: then there are issues with NIF conversion: you always need to clear up white space and you loose reference to document
... fragment identifier in NIF was another issue, to discuss also in LIDER probably
... some work needed to register a mime type etc., which may take quite long
... so in ITS IG we just put the comments in turtle file and generate HTML from that
... can work on github / NIF on this, once this is stable we can put it back to W3C site

<scribe> ACTION: dave to work on ITS ontology documentation in turtle - due 15 december [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/11/27-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Error finding 'dave'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/users>.

<scribe> ACTION: daveL to work on ITS ontology documentation in turtle - due 15 december [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/11/27-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-590 - Work on its ontology documentation in turtle [on David Lewis - due 2013-12-15].

h2020 topics

http://www.w3.org/2013/11/26-mlw-lt-minutes.html#item11

scribe: but you continue to use "dir" with "rtl" or "ltr"

richard: html5 and directionality

olaf-michael: relation between directionality and unicode characters?

richard: there are new characters in unicode 6.3
... "dir" attribute is isolating. the "bdi" attribute will still be avail.
... instead of embedding they isolate
... and unicode has related recommendations
... so these characters now have an equivalence in HTML and CSS
... old "rte" and "lte" (= embedding) don't have equivelance any more
... the default CSS stylesheet will be with isolation as the default

dave: implications on ITS2?
... the HTML world superseeds that

richard: there was nothing for XML anyway, so no effect
... you have to use CSS for XML anyway
... the new CSS stuff uses isolation
... the ITS2 spec: it will have to be changed
... but not huge
... think also about whether you want to include bdi

dave: so a big impact on ITS?

richard: some things that need to change

dave: at the moment there is not a critical mass of new things that we would straight do for ITS

richard: could also happen in i18n group
... ruby extension spec is getting wide approval
... have implementation committments in webkit and blink
... now about ruby:
... above is situation for ruby markup
... ruby needs CSS support too
... that will come in an extended period of time
... that is not related to ITS either
... so that is a significantly different model from what is in ITS 1.0

dave: html guys are on top of that
... there was no pressing need on the XML side

felix: just need people / implementers who want to do that

asun: for h2020 some things that are not incremental are needed
... for "real" research not a continuation is needed, but something disruptive
... there are many different issues, e.g: how to use linked data for translation / localization
... for any kind of language technology
... e.g. using linked data in translation memories
... focus would be value chain of data

dave showing picture of open web platform

dave: can move things from the localiation are more into the browser
... this is also kind of bottom up
... but: in ITS we have expertise how to annotate content
... in LIDER we have experience in work with LOD
... how to make the link between metadata and content
... including multimedia content
... you propose to add some kind of multilingual part

asun: there is existing platforms in LOD communtiy

dave: bring in various content areas in: mobile, epublishing, ...
... our expertise in the crossover area
... crossover between LOD and content

asun: at this moment there are some projects that try to enrich content
... so this could be seen as yet another project for enriching
... what is the added value?
... key is: linked data is not already taken into account, in teh translation process

dave: this idea is kind of incremental

asun: in h2020 we need a topic that nobody will propose

pedro: main pain item is quality

adjourn for now

- DRAFT -

MLW-LT WG

27 Nov 2013

Attendees

Contents