- From: Dr. David Filip <David.Filip@ul.ie>
- Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:20:53 +0100
- To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CANw5LKkq2Ar2BiFnkk-nbSqL7K=yi6rh6RvA1Wm6W2+UwotTxA@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks for the minutes, Felix, they look good. Just that the "band characters" should read "banned characters" as in forbidden.. I normally do not care much for typos, but this one could be potentially misleading :-0 Cheers df Dr. David Filip ======================= LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS University of Limerick, Ireland telephone: +353-6120-2781 *cellphone: +353-86-0222-158* facsimile: +353-6120-2734 mailto: david.filip@ul.ie On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote: > ... are at http://www.w3.org/2012/08/02-mlw-lt-minutes.html and below as > text. > > Felix > > [1]W3C > > [1] http://www.w3.org/ > > - DRAFT - > > mlw-lt > > 02 Aug 2012 > > [2]Agenda > > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Aug/0057.html > > See also: [3]IRC log > > [3] http://www.w3.org/2012/08/02-mlw-lt-irc > > Attendees > > Present > Arle, davidF, declan, des, dom, felix, milan, jirka, > shaun, leroy, pedro, philr, michael, tadej > > Regrets > Chair > David > > Scribe > Arle, Felix, tadej > > Contents > > * [4]Topics > 1. [5]charter change > 2. [6]call for consensus on special requirements > 3. [7]Named Entity/Disambiguation > 4. [8]mtConfidence > 5. [9]issue-29 progress > 6. [10]issue-34 (quality) > 7. [11]house keeping > 8. [12]aob > * [13]Summary of Action Items > __________________________________________________________ > > charter change > > david: I see impact on two levels > ... good to be official part of HTML, good for our prestige > ... but it will also force us to be more consicse , more > compact > ... I agree, we need to make the cut really soon > ... and what we put out of scope in the first wave > > Felix: Some background why this happened. In the original > charter we said we would define metadata for HTML5. We would > use RDFa and Microdata. This approach is difficult. Jirka, in > discussion with the HTML group, was pointed to a solution, to > define its- attributes. > ... This mechanism was not created by us, but was advocated > because namespaces are not possible in HTML5, but this is a > replacement for that. > ... W3C international discussion did not say it was a wrong > approach, but rather that we need to coordinate this work with > the HTML5 working group, that we keep them aware and are OK > with it. > ... But what does it mean that they are OK with it? One thing > is that it does *not* mean we are adding attributes to HTML5 > itself. > ... Rather we need a review from the HTML5 working group that > they are OK with our approach. It sounds like a minor > difference, but to come back to the process, adding attributes > to HTML5 would be adding to the work done in HTML5. We cannot > do that. HTML5 is in last call and nothing can be added. All > that we are doing is defining attributes and getting the > blessing of the HTML that we are following the right approach. > ... We need to change the charter for this because we said we > would not invent our attributes, but instead use RDFa and > microdata, but we are inventing our own attributes. The change > in charter is to make them aware that we are doing this. > ... In terms of timing, it is important that we do this now > before we finalize the draft so that we can move forward with > out plan. > ... Last point: as David said, this has good parts and bad > parts. The good part is that we now have more interest from the > HTML community and working group in our work. That interest, I > know from experience, is not easy. This is all public, btw., > you can and should let people know. > ... The bad aspect is what David said: we can be motivated to > be as web content-producer digestible/understandable as > possible. We need to be careful that what we describe and > define and keep that perspective in mind: we need to make it > understandable to people outside of localization. Look at what > Arle did in changing attribute names to make them more > understandable. > ... Like David said, it also means we need to close the set of > data categories we want to deal with. > ... We may still add mtConfidence, but aside from that, it > makes sense ton concentrate now on how to sell what we have > agreed upon to the web content people. > > <fsasaki> > [14]https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/mlw-lt-charter-2012-up > date/ > > [14] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/mlw-lt-charter-2012-update/ > > Felix: One admin detail: to make this work, we will need a > review of the charter. Everyone representing an organization, > please fill in this form or get your rep to fill it in. > > David: I think this is important and that we took the time is > good. But let's keep the discussion short. > > call for consensus on special requirements > > david: comments that Yves made were made before > ... the category as specified now contains two to three > different categories > ... I think the contents of this category, at least the > display-size should be taken further > ... is there anybody who wants to take this further? > > pedro: you mean to split this into several ones? > > felix: propose that micha takes an action item to split this > into several ones > > micha: sure > > <scribe> ACTION: michael to split special requirements into > several data categories [recorded in > [15]http://www.w3.org/2012/08/02-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action01] > > <trackbot> Created ACTION-189 - Split special requirements into > several data categories [on Michael Kruppa - due 2012-08-09]. > > micha: it would be just two categories > > <Arle> Apologies for having to drop out. I'll look at the > minutes later, but someone came to the door and I can't put > them off. I may be able to jump back in later. > > david: display size, storage, band characters > ... this should be split I think > ... should be quite easiy > > pedro: so summary is: we split special requirements into three: > display, storage size, forbidden characters > > david: yes, band characters are the least stable part > ... the reg ex thing needs to be resolved > > pedro: the current attributes of storage size and display size > are part of one category? > ... for me it is fine > > Named Entity/Disambiguation > > david: a lot of discussion about this during last weeks call > ... action item for tadej to implement this, tadej, what's your > progress? > > tadej: I went through the minutes > ... mostly things were around good terminology to fit all > communities > ... right now I have a version that integrates all suggestions > ... I still work on the one with different variants of pointer, > refpointer etc. > ... I will send a new version of the draft, this time on google > docs > > david: I thought it should be final? > > tadej: thought it would be necessary > ... I have enough information from everyone > > felix: no need to have too many call for consensus for a data > category, if it is ready, we will put it into the draft > > david: have a task force or just post it? > > tadej: from my perspective I think this is ready > ... just want to have another review from the people on the > call > > felix: that's fine > > pedro: for this data category > ... we should involve piek vossen, he can give great input on > this > > felix: agree, if we send this to the list, piek hopefully can > join the discussion > > mtConfidence > > david: had good discussion about mtConfidence > ... mtEngine self evaluation > ... Chris Wendt said that this would serve their purpose > > declan: understand the difficiulties ms is mentioning in the > mail > ... the parts MS was talking about could be hard to implement > ... would propose to jsut implement mtConfidence score > ... the automatic metrix are hard and may not be that useful > across the automatic workflow > > david: in the august list, I responded to jan nelson > ... declan and chris wendt made similar points > ... other pointers are needed to produce the score, but not > needed for a content attribute > ... agree it would be messy to try to implement this with > reference implementations > ... agree with Declan and Chris that self evaluation order and > confidence would be more useful and stable > ... happy to drive only mtConfidence > ... human evaluation does not suffer from this > ... many people do this > ... not error checking, but people using simple scale > ... this evaluation gets more importance > ... would be good to be able to encode it > > felix: I hope that we can postpone this discussion since we > have too much stuff to do, we should focus on that > > pedro: for post editing you need a lot of other information > ... score itself is not enough > > david: think post editing is out of scope > ... it would be messy if we try to map score and post editing > ... not sure if this is what you meant > ... I'm happy to continue just with mtConfidence > ... this needs to move forward on the ML > > <scribe> ACTION: dfilip to draft a section about mtConfidence, > based on the discussion [recorded in > [16]http://www.w3.org/2012/08/02-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action04] > > <trackbot> Created ACTION-190 - Draft a section about > mtConfidence, based on the discussion [on David Filip - due > 2012-08-09]. > > issue-29 progress > > david: maxime is working on this > ... prominent in the light of recent changes > > <tadej> scribe: tadej > > fsasaki: The current status is that output to RDF is already > done and independent of RDFa or Microdata, we are at the point > of needing a chapter for the standard and defining the RDF > ontology. > > <fsasaki> rdf representation here > [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb- > lt/2012Jul/0065.html and > [18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb- > lt/2012Jul/att-0065/nodelist-rdfxml.xml > > [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Jul/0065.html > [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Jul/att-0065/nodelist-rdfxml.xml > > issue-34 (quality) > > <fsasaki> phil: we are very close to being able to issue our > call > > <fsasaki> .. had various naming and implementation details, we > are very close > > <fsasaki> david: I discussed with arle that he would submit a > speaking proposal for seattle > > <fsasaki> .. what's the time line for closing? > > <fsasaki> phil: need to check with Arle > > <fsasaki> david: on track for closing this within august > > house keeping > > <fsasaki> see overdue actions at > [19]https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/a > ctions/overdue > > [19] https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/overdue > > <fsasaki> action-158 - jirka, will do editorial work next week > > <fsasaki> jirka: might make sense that yves edits this > > <fsasaki> action-164 discussed during the call today > > <fsasaki> felix: see editing plans for HTML5 and query language > attr. here > [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb- > lt/2012Aug/0062.html > > [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Aug/0062.html > > <fsasaki> > [21]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Pra > gueSep2012#Objectives > > [21] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/PragueSep2012#Objectives > > <fsasaki> felix: this is just a start about the prague f2f, > feel free to comment > > <fsasaki> david: short update on my action item - seattle event > > <fsasaki> action-34 > > <fsasaki> david: we extended call for papers > > <fsasaki> .. felix and arle, can you promote the event on the > social media setup > > <fsasaki> ACTION: felix to promote seattle event on mlw setup > [recorded in > [22]http://www.w3.org/2012/08/02-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action05] > > <trackbot> Created ACTION-191 - Promote seattle event on mlw > setup [on Felix Sasaki - due 2012-08-09]. > > <fsasaki> david: we have a strong pc > > <fsasaki> david: lot's of interesting submissions on the way > > <fsasaki> david: on good track with this event > > aob > > <fsasaki> pedro: felix asked me to present in prague > implementation, things of what we use for our showcase, > progress indicator and readyness > > <fsasaki> felix: everything you have available, if possible > just show us on the list > > <fsasaki> > [23]http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Bes > t_Practices > > [23] http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Best_Practices > > <fsasaki> pedro: agree to focus on this next year > > <fsasaki> david: thanks, think we did good progress today, > thanks all for your hard work > > <fsasaki> bye everybody > > Summary of Action Items > > [NEW] ACTION: dfilip to draft a section about mtConfidence, > based on the discussion [recorded in > [24]http://www.w3.org/2012/08/02-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action04] > [NEW] ACTION: felix to promote seattle event on mlw setup > [recorded in > [25]http://www.w3.org/2012/08/02-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action05] > [NEW] ACTION: michael to split special requirements into > several data categories [recorded in > [26]http://www.w3.org/2012/08/02-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action01] > > [End of minutes] > __________________________________________________________ > > > Minutes formatted by David Booth's [27]scribe.perl version > 1.136 ([28]CVS log) > $Date: 2012/08/02 15:10:14 $ > > [27] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm > [28] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/ > > >
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2012 15:22:00 UTC