15:52:46 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #i18nits
15:52:46 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/12/08-i18nits-irc
15:52:50 <fsasaki> meeting: ITS IG
15:52:52 <fsasaki> chair: felix
15:52:55 <fsasaki> scribe: fsasaki
15:52:55 <dF> dF has joined #i18nits
15:53:01 <fsasaki> agenda: kevin@wripl.com
15:53:09 <dF> present+ dF
15:53:17 <fsasaki> s/kevin@wripl.com//
15:53:25 <fsasaki> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2014Dec/0010.html
15:53:32 <fsasaki> regrets+ serge
15:53:38 <fsasaki> topic: roll call
15:53:41 <fsasaki> checking attendeeds
15:53:48 <fsasaki> present+ felix
15:54:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/12/08-i18nits-minutes.html fsasaki
15:54:49 <dF> Felix, is the goto up yet?
15:55:02 <dF> it says waiting for organizer
15:55:25 <dF> OK, just double-checking that I am on the right goto id
15:57:02 <renatb> renatb has joined #i18nits
15:57:12 <renatb> present+ renatb
15:57:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/12/08-i18nits-minutes.html fsasaki
16:00:43 <Tatiana> Tatiana has joined #i18nits
16:01:52 <YvesS> YvesS has joined #i18nits
16:01:55 <philr> philr has joined #i18nits
16:02:03 <philr> present+ philr
16:02:05 <YvesS> present+ YvesS
16:02:22 <fsasaki> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2014Dec/0010.html
16:03:45 <fsasaki> topic: list of open issues related to xliff - its
16:05:38 <fsasaki> david: related to standoff markup - in loc quality isussue, and provenance there is xml:id on the standoff wrapper
16:05:45 <fsasaki> .. the xml:id is used as reference from inline markup
16:05:50 <fsasaki> .. if standoff is needed
16:06:11 <fsasaki> .. two related issues - first, we allow xml:id in extensions. Do we want it in a module?
16:06:47 <fsasaki> .. if it was an nmtoken it would not need to follow the xml:id syntax
16:06:56 <fsasaki> .. it could be simply nmtoken
16:07:01 <fsasaki> .. that was one thing I was wondering
16:07:45 <fsasaki> felix: is that all you had related to standoff?
16:07:48 <fsasaki> david: yes, that's it
16:08:00 <fsasaki> yves: about xml:id and standoff
16:08:12 <fsasaki> ... I think we address that in the fragment identification
16:08:19 <fsasaki> .. we said you could use xml:id
16:08:33 <fsasaki> david: yes, we say that, not to dictate to extensions
16:08:44 <fsasaki> .. for a module we can make it nmtoken
16:08:52 <fsasaki> .. no need to work with uniqueness
16:08:59 <fsasaki> yves: the uniqueness is always there
16:09:10 <fsasaki> .. it does not work if it is not an xml:id
16:09:51 <fsasaki> david: reference would be just a reference, not a fragment identifier
16:10:14 <fsasaki> yves: not sure - we always point with fragment identier
16:10:23 <fsasaki> s/list of open issues related to xliff - its/standoff markup and xml:id/
16:10:32 <fsasaki> .. not sure, have to think about it
16:10:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/12/08-i18nits-minutes.html fsasaki
16:11:37 <fsasaki> david: sure, will explore to make this an nmtoken and write a mail to both public lists about this
16:11:39 <fsasaki> .. with the options
16:12:18 <fsasaki> topic: progress of xliff - its
16:12:25 <fsasaki> david: today's call was meant as status check
16:12:32 <fsasaki> ... we are delayed but delay is not too bad
16:13:43 <fsasaki> .. although ITS module is delayed, it is the farest advanced from the approved features
16:13:54 <fsasaki> .. advanced validation, ITS module, internal matches
16:14:04 <fsasaki> present+ christian
16:14:12 <fsasaki> david: so whole progress is delayed
16:14:23 <fsasaki> .. we don't need to worry that ITS has to jump on the train not being complete
16:14:31 <fsasaki> .. I am picking up speed transfering mapping to the spec
16:14:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/12/08-i18nits-minutes.html fsasaki
16:15:08 <fsasaki> david: first draft should be feature complete strawman by christmas
16:15:16 <fsasaki> .. what others should do: develop the rules file
16:15:17 <chriLi> chriLi has joined #i18nits
16:15:28 <fsasaki> .. that should be implemented and circulated
16:15:32 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #i18nits
16:15:47 <fsasaki> david: then what is also needed: a conformance clause for the module?
16:15:59 <fsasaki> .. we have several ways to tackle conformance for the module
16:16:24 <fsasaki> .. that is connected to the rules file - we need a good description of the markup simplification for the ITS processors
16:16:26 <fsasaki> q+
16:16:51 <fsasaki> david: it cannot be guaranteed what happens if the simplification does not succeed
16:17:52 <fsasaki> yves: we also need implementation on the XLIFF side
16:18:03 <fsasaki> .. otherwise the features are not used
16:18:19 <fsasaki> .. if the data categories are not use from the XLIFF side, it has not been validated as working
16:18:36 <fsasaki> david: will talk with dave lewis from trinity if they can provide an implementation
16:18:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/12/08-i18nits-minutes.html fsasaki
16:19:44 <fsasaki> phil: we have xliff 2 on the roadmap for ocelot, will not happen before christmas
16:20:01 <fsasaki> .. not sure if deploying library from yves counts?
16:20:32 <fsasaki> david: I think previously, when we did ITS2 implementations, we established re-using libraries is a valid way to provide reference implementations
16:20:54 <fsasaki> .. the think with oasis is: we need three implementations / statements of use
16:21:10 <fsasaki> ... one of them needs to be oasis member
16:22:18 <fsasaki> david: requirement is relaxed
16:22:38 <fsasaki> phil: if there were an opportunity to support xliff 2.0, if we exercise some module features it would be good?
16:22:41 <fsasaki> david: indeed
16:22:52 <fsasaki> .. the only module for XLIFF 2.1 so far is ITS module
16:23:34 <fsasaki> .. we will do again statements of use as a questionaire, like we did for XLIFF 2.0
16:23:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/12/08-i18nits-minutes.html fsasaki
16:24:27 <fsasaki> topic: back to standoff topic
16:24:40 <fsasaki> yves: in ITS we don't specify where the standoff element should be
16:24:51 <fsasaki> .. for XLIFF it may be wise to limit the location of the element
16:25:05 <fsasaki> .. there is loc quality issue and provenance who use the information
16:25:19 <fsasaki> .. for LQI information is in source or target
16:25:33 <fsasaki> .. and we would not share information between units
16:25:44 <fsasaki> ... that means, different instances of information are per unit
16:26:01 <fsasaki> ... was wondering if we should limit the location
16:26:17 <fsasaki> david: you postulate that in the wiki, think it is a good idea, to restrict it to the same unit
16:26:42 <fsasaki> yves: ok. so how about provenance - is that an obstacle, e.g. for phil?
16:27:07 <fsasaki> .. when you have a standdoff annotation, if it is at the end, you have to do several passes, that is annoying with a stream reader
16:27:34 <fsasaki> phil: currently ocelt writes this at the end of the file element
16:29:28 <fsasaki> felix: probably due my misunderstanidng of xliff 1.2 extension points
16:29:52 <fsasaki> david: for xliff 2.1 we could restrict provenance standoff for unit - would not make sense to make them lower?
16:30:00 <fsasaki> .. you can also have change tracking on any level
16:30:06 <philr> I also had the feeling it was due to the reader/writer we are using
16:30:14 <fsasaki> .. I postponed to do provenance and MT confidence
16:30:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/12/08-i18nits-minutes.html fsasaki
16:31:29 <fsasaki> david: so location for provenance - would make sense to restrict standoff for inline provenance to be in the same unit
16:31:45 <fsasaki> ... structural provenance could be in any place
16:31:57 <fsasaki> ... or we could say standoff must not be used for higher than unit
16:32:22 <fsasaki> .. that would be an issue if there is a use case for overlap on higher level
16:32:29 <fsasaki> phil: our use case is specific to unit level
16:32:44 <fsasaki> david: we could use two standoff extension points: file + unit
16:32:53 <fsasaki> .. unit would be the highest to put inline standoff
16:33:32 <fsasaki> david: if we said standoff is only avail. for inline on unit, and for file on structural annotations
16:33:46 <fsasaki> .. I will implement it in the spec text like that and you can look at it
16:34:09 <fsasaki> topic: schema listings in the (xliff) spec
16:34:20 <fsasaki> david: schema listings make the spec biiig
16:34:38 <fsasaki> .. spec gets bigger and bigger if we have schema listings
16:34:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/12/08-i18nits-minutes.html fsasaki
16:35:19 <fsasaki> david: schema listing is an informative listing of the artifact
16:35:28 <fsasaki> .. schema file will still be linked from the spec
16:35:55 <fsasaki> .. schema listing is informal. Is the schema listing relevant for readers / implementers of the spec?
16:36:02 <fsasaki> phil: is there an example you can point to?
16:36:05 <fsasaki> david: sure
16:36:21 <fsasaki> .. will provide a link to xliff 2.0 spec, you can see them included
16:36:31 <fsasaki> .. oasis confirmed it is ok to dump them
16:36:48 <dF> http://docs.oasis-open.org/xliff/xliff-core/v2.0/os/xliff-core-v2.0-os.html
16:37:36 <fsasaki> david: see appendix a - schemas + catalogues listings
16:38:22 <fsasaki> phil: will check with people about this
16:38:29 <fsasaki> david: please post answer later
16:38:31 <fsasaki> phil: ok
16:39:27 <fsasaki> yves: about schemas again - does anybody work on ITS module schema?
16:39:31 <fsasaki> david: no, AFAIK
16:39:58 <fsasaki> .. tom is working on transforming documentation into XSDs
16:40:19 <fsasaki> .. may ping him to start looking at it this week
16:41:05 <fsasaki> ... hope to have schematrons ready in january
16:41:29 <fsasaki> felix: that would be relevant for the validation module, right?
16:41:50 <fsasaki> david: yes - validation is an orthogonal issue. XSDs are the only things that we need for the module
16:42:05 <fsasaki> ... for the advanced validation we must provide them for the new module
16:42:47 <fsasaki> felix: jirka provided schematron files for ITS2, these may be useful input
16:43:06 <fsasaki> see schematron files here: http://www.w3.org/TR/its20/#its-schemas
16:43:35 <fsasaki> topic: rules file
16:43:44 <fsasaki> felix: we started a rules file in the wiki
16:44:01 <fsasaki> david: sure, cannot be finished until the prose is finished
16:44:06 <dF> its:any
16:44:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/12/08-i18nits-minutes.html fsasaki
16:44:25 <dF> generic
16:44:41 <dF> itsm:generic
16:44:49 <fsasaki> david: in the strawman I am working on, I am using itsm:generic
16:44:55 <fsasaki> .. seems to be more systematic
16:45:02 <dF> itsm:nonTerm
16:45:45 <fsasaki> felix: is that related to the rules file?
16:46:07 <fsasaki> david: it is - if you parse the annotations you can recognize them as ITS if the have the "itsm:generic" type
16:46:18 <dF> its
16:46:27 <dF> itsm
16:46:44 <fsasaki> david: itsm makes clear that this is the xliff thing, not the w3c thing
16:46:51 <dF> generic
16:46:57 <fsasaki> yves: using generic instead of any is because of ...?
16:47:13 <fsasaki> .. generic in the case of annotation means: when you add some stuff
16:47:22 <fsasaki> ... we can discuss that forever I think
16:47:31 <fsasaki> .. there are many reasons to choose one or the other
16:47:43 <fsasaki> ... it is an arbitrary string I guess
16:47:55 <fsasaki> .. XLIFF core implementer is used to calling generic annotations generic
16:48:41 <fsasaki> yves: for the xliff we have the type since we need a type
16:48:58 <fsasaki> .. but it is not appearing in many documents since it is the default
16:49:41 <fsasaki> topic: space annotation, language annotation
16:49:57 <fsasaki> david: we discussed whether these should be in the ITS module or in a different modjule
16:50:07 <fsasaki> .. not sure - good to be aware of it
16:50:17 <fsasaki> .. currently I am implementing it as a singel module
16:50:39 <fsasaki> .. yves, it is possible to have several modules with the same namespace? the same "itsm" namespace
16:50:49 <fsasaki> .. or would that violate some of the XLIFF constraints?
16:51:03 <fsasaki> yves: don't think that it matters - namespaces don't have to match the modules
16:51:16 <fsasaki> .. we already use different modules anyway, like for xml:lang etc.
16:51:37 <fsasaki> david: I guess I will finish implementing that in one bulk, and we can break it up in January
16:51:43 <fsasaki> ack fsa
16:52:16 <fsasaki> topic: implementations needed
16:52:31 <fsasaki> felix: for moving forward you need XLIFF implementations, not ITS only, right?
16:52:42 <fsasaki> david: that is related to conformance clause
16:53:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/12/08-i18nits-minutes.html fsasaki
16:54:11 <fsasaki> david: I think that something supports the module means: just support reading ITS data category
16:54:35 <fsasaki> felix: hard to separate these things - ocelot would do both
16:54:43 <fsasaki> david: ocelot would be great
16:55:25 <fsasaki> .. but we need at least three implementations
16:55:33 <fsasaki> .. we will need an extra agent
16:55:51 <fsasaki> yves: I disagree with that
16:55:58 <fsasaki> david: why woudl you think it is bad
16:56:10 <fsasaki> yves: you would have an XLIFF processor, not an ITS processor
16:56:13 <fsasaki> david: indeed
16:56:21 <fsasaki> .. what if the processor woudl do the sm transform?
16:56:37 <fsasaki> yves: there is cases in which you cannot do the transformation
16:57:36 <fsasaki> david: we need normative language to describe that
16:57:57 <fsasaki> felix: we should take time until things are worked out
16:58:48 <fsasaki> david: from the point of view of the module you could define separate constraints
16:59:23 <fsasaki> christian: have not looked into discussion too often. What I heard about conformance + conformance clauses what not clear so far
16:59:50 <fsasaki> ... I understood that either xliff or ITS would change or add conformance clauses, but that may be a misunderstanding
17:01:00 <fsasaki> felix: hope that there would be no change for the existing specs - xliff 2.0 and its 2.0
17:01:50 <fsasaki> david: it is OK for xliff module to add conformance requirements, they must not be with general conformance requirements
17:01:52 <fsasaki> topic: AOB
17:02:14 <fsasaki> christian: felix and I gave a presentation related to ITS, for Tekom annual conference in stuttgart
17:02:23 <fsasaki> .. presentation is online, in german
17:02:24 <chriLi> https://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt/wiki/File:Tekom-sasaki-lieske-2014-1119.pdf
17:02:31 <dF> must not be in conflict ;-)
17:03:04 <fsasaki> .. other item - felix and I translated / broadend the scope of presentation that will appear soon in Multilingual
17:03:32 <dF> in 2015 Multilingual Resource directory
17:03:33 <fsasaki> topic: next call
17:03:41 <fsasaki> 12 january?
17:03:42 <YvesS> yes
17:04:11 <fsasaki> s/directory/directory will have a standards reader again with update on xliff 2.0 and its 2.0/
17:04:13 <chriLi> yes
17:09:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/12/08-i18nits-minutes.html fsasaki
17:15:44 <fsasaki> adjourned
17:15:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/12/08-i18nits-minutes.html fsasaki
17:25:12 <RRSAgent> I see no action items