16 Jul 2014


See also: IRC log


fsasaki, philr, serge, dF, jirka
dave, tatiana, olaf-michael, cLieske


roll call

checking attendance

feedback on "Open Data Management position statement"


serge: if there is a public service which will enable content to be published automatically, everbody will be affected
... we need to provision some hocking points for communities that will be engaged
... to indicate that they will participate
... want to demonstrate that this is relevant to them as well
... if you speak to data annotaiton to the public, they will say "what?"
... definitely LT community will be affected

<dF> will join audio shortly

serge: language service community will also be affected
... e.g. preparing data, testing, other stuff
... so we need to mention them
... so some simple language that makes that clear
... then about providing feedback: nobody will do that blindly
... in the future that will be avail. for automatically translated data too
... it has to be in the data itself - the feedback
... in industry sector there is much talking about European language cloud
... but there is no detailed info about this
... but if we use the token, people will find the document
... so it is an important keyword to place
... this is a very important document, I like it
... it is laying out good foundation for public services and automated translation
... but it is important to lay place for future engagement of other stakeholders
... now to B: quality measurement
... I don't see it practical to blindly publish material
... to some extend it has be manual, to some extend automatic
... things have to be in the data, that is the concept
... that is why I believe that ITS LQI is important here

felix mentioning linked data represention of ITS and MQM (ongoing) as a nice way to move quality aspect in data world forward

serge: mentioning ITS and RDF would be appropriate here I think
... about point 1: previous draft had a question "what is standards?"
... one should mention ITS and RDF, and the standards bodies that are concerned with those
... no two: reference model graphics: it has QA component
... but I don't think it is an industry term
... the term encompasses severa items - strictly speaking it is a standards components box
... before MQM and DQF and the QTLP project, there was an incorrect notion
... if you improve the process the quality will improve by itself
... that is a problem of many quality related standards
... that is why something like MQM is rquired: you need to be able to build the metrics
... many companies provide LQ assurance as a separate process step
... clearly this is a building block
... also required for full automatic translation
... and that is why qtlp started and mqm came up
... LQA is an industry term, one should refer to that

now number 3:

scribe: we need to change data mgmt requirement 5 to m (mandatory)
... without a feedback channel it will not be possible to improve machine translation
... it should not be optional, but mandatory
... like google, which allows you to edit mt text
... point 4:
... proposal to improve requirement 5
... point 5:
... one should mention here MQM
... with all these changes this document will be more complete
... about point C:
... we have a certain lack of stakeholders for the doc
... need to do certain outreach that will engage relevant stakeholders
... right now list of contributors is quite narrow
... one of the recent calls there was a question: why was there no call for comment to industry?
... with this changes the document is in a good shape to give feedback to wider industry
... one should initiate wider feedback

discussion on how to move the docuemnt forward - felix saying that there is time for that, no need to hurry, and now we can reach out to outside telling: give your input

serge: I would reach out to others and say: this is our current state
... one should contact projects and say: please provide input

felix: happy to send out in MLI for feedback

<scribe> ACTION: felix to draft outreach mail for doc for others to re-use [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/07/16-i18nits-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-49 - Draft outreach mail for doc for others to re-use [on Felix Sasaki - due 2014-07-23].

serge: we can solicit feedback from gala, we have a huge list of contacts

<scribe> ACTION: serge to draft outreach mail for doc for others to re-use [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/07/16-i18nits-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-50 - Draft outreach mail for doc for others to re-use [on Serge Gladkoff - due 2014-07-23].

close action-49

<trackbot> Closed action-49.

david: nothing I disagree with, looking into it now
... many aspects are preparatory, but that is important
... standard emphasis, interchange capabilities

XLIFF related points

david: XLIFF 2.0 majority vote passed yesterday
... that means: within a week OASIS membership vote will start
... that is like: after WG makes something final it goes to AC vote
... so all OASIS members will vote
... there are currently 283 members
... only contributors or sponsors can vote
... we need to get at least 43 votes to get OASIS standard label
... it is not so easy
... out of 283 I know only 20 are on the TC
... we really need to get some help to reach out to primary representatives to get positive votes
... I have a list of OASIS members who are also in W3C, 32 orgs. So AC rep in W3C may be the same like OASIS
... I think it would help to make AC reps aware of this development

felix: focus on technical aspect of relation between XLIFF2 and ITS2, not so much relation between standards bodies

david: like tech approach here
... explain that bitext is needed in multilingual transformation, here is the relationship
... it solves the problem, preserve the metadata

discussion on OASIS support and W3C support rules

jirka: for docbook it was easy

david: we do it the way you did: finding contact owners for companies
... need to freeze wiki mapping as a snapshot
... stop in the ITS IG and make this an XLIFF 2.1 feature

serge: what stage is xliff 2.1 in?

david: TC decided to work on it
... there is informal consensus on the features that should be in:
... the oasis admin is aware that we are working on it
... the timeline is: at feistiltt people agreed on releasing minor version yearly
... for 2.1 there should be deadline for reference implementations in November
... january - may should be spent on admin steps
... tech stuff should be achieved betwee the summer and November
... feature set is narrow
... but big features. two major features:
... offical ITS support
... a lot of ITS features are possible in xliff as extentions
... but a module is a better status for the feature
... the ITS support should become and official part of the spec
... ITS may be several modules to avoid interdepencies
... the other feature is advanced validation support
... that is also why felix joined the TC

(discussion on validation topic in oasis)

serge: happy to create news item for the industry about this

david: great
... it is not yet recorded as an offical feature yet because of summer vacations etc.

serge: will create a blurb from the minutes, for you to approve

david: would be great to make some fuzz about XLIFF 2.0 becoming a standard
... CNGL will make a press release about that

serge: I'll do that too

david: you can announce xliff as a standard, saying that the final vote is happening these dates
... I will forward the notification to this group so that you know that it is official

feisgiltt event

david: will have a feisgiltt event in vancouver
... it overlaps with w3c tpac unfortunately but it is important to raise standards awareness in loc community
... focus will be on TBX/RDF, ITS mapping etc. - an outreach effort, bring the news to north america
... if you have any input to call for paper, let me know
... we are using same PC that we had for Dublin feisgiltt

<philr> Apologies, I have to leave for another meeting.

automated translation doc again

serge: added ITS/RDF to https://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/Open_Data_Management_for_Public_Automated_Translation_Services#Terminology , need some links

felix: I'll add the links

<dF> https://www.oasis-open.org/news/announcements/60-day-public-review-for-xliff-version-2-0-candidate-oasis-standard-ends-july-5th



Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: felix to draft outreach mail for doc for others to re-use [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/07/16-i18nits-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: serge to draft outreach mail for doc for others to re-use [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/07/16-i18nits-minutes.html#action02]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2014-07-16 14:21:18 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/features/feature/
Succeeded: s/why/also why/
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: fsasaki
Inferring Scribes: fsasaki
Present: fsasaki philr serge dF jirka
Regrets: dave tatiana olaf-michael cLieske
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2014Jul/0013.html
Got date from IRC log name: 16 Jul 2014
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/07/16-i18nits-minutes.html
People with action items: felix serge

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]