MultilingualWeb-LT Workshop, Dublin

Change to agenda - Felix will go through data categories implementation commitments list first

Implementation commitments

Scribe: Jirka Kosek

led by Felix

Felix: review of agenda

<Arle> Key is *real* commitments, not just interest.

Dave: where we will collect implementation commitments

<Arle> Decisions (not final details) must be complete by July, with details by November.

Felix: proposes to create wiki for such data
... everyone should think about which categories can gain support in implementations, we will discuss it afternoon
... what we will agree to today will appear in draft, we can change later if necessary

<Arle> LINK: http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Implementation_Commitments

Sebastian Hellman: There is overlap in NIF and ITS proposed datacategories
..RDF world can reuse ITS concepts if we provide ITS OWL

Tadej: RDF/RDFa can be used as an interchange format only, it will not be generally possible to construct original HTML+ITS fron NIF

<scribe> ACTION: Tadej to Write proposal how mapping between NIF and HTML+ITS would look like with concrete examples [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/13-mlwDub-minutes.html#action01]

XLIFF extensibility

Des: are talking about extensibility in XLIFF in general only for ITS

Felix: In general

David: Individual people can send comments to XLIFF TC asking for improved extensibility

Bryan: Message could be that we want custom namespaces feature to be improved

Richard: We should ask personally who will support this

<scribe> ACTION: Felix to Draft email to XLIFF committee about improving extensibility [due 2012-06-15] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/13-mlwDub-minutes.html#action02]

<fsasaki> will do that by today evening

<fsasaki> to be sent to public-multilingualweb-lt

LocWorld

David: October 16th - our ITS track
... Oct 17th pre-conference track for broader auditorium
... LocWorld is 18 and 19, we will have few talks about ITS there

Felix: We need to find September dates for additional technical meeting
... proposal Sep 17/18 in Prague
... and alternative is 25/26
... final decision is September 25/26

<scribe> ACTION: Jirka to arrange F2F meeting in September at UEP [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/13-mlwDub-minutes.html#action03]

Project Information Metadata

Scribe: Jirka Kosek

lead by David Filip

<fsasaki> (wrt to last session - people interested in XLIFF email draft: Richard, Des, Felix, who else?)

David: summarizes current PI related proposed data categories
... too many and overlapping data categories

<fsasaki> all, my list of consensus is now at http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Implementation_Commitments - please have a look and come back to it in the afternoon

Felix: we can create best practise saying to reuse existing Dublin Core properties

Arle: There is also big overlap with ISO 10669

<fsasaki> my idea is to reuse HTML "meta" element and have dc.subject in here with a scheme, e.g. ISO 10669, DDC (if you want), ...

Maxime: meta applies to document as a whole but you might want several chunks inside document

Arle: idea was to have ability to apply those data categories to any part of document

Dave: we should incorporate to ITS only things which help in translation and have use case, we shouldn't supply general CMS related metadata

<scribe> ACTION: Felix to Summarize discussion around Domain [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/13-mlwDub-minutes.html#action04]

David: Genre discussion

<fsasaki> mail from Georg here http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012May/0096

David: consensus about dropping genre
... formatType discussion

<fsasaki> dublin core examples see http://de.selfhtml.org/html/kopfdaten/meta.htm#dublin_core (in German, apologies)

David: consensus for dropping translationQualification
... back to domain

Yves: shouldn't we provide ITS category for domain and for HTML map this to DC in meta

There seems to be interested in implementing domain

<fsasaki> I think Pedro, Declan, Yves raised their hands - please protest otherwise

register discussion

<fsasaki> FYI, here is the domain mapping rule example http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Jun/0049.html

genre and purpose droped

Translation Process Metadata

Scribe: Moritz Hellwig

dF: the agenda is, what is related to process metadata. Everything we define is orthogonal, all data categories are orthonogal, but they need to be in sync
... orthogonal categories must fit together
... the state machines need to be in think, orthogonal values must make sense to parties in the chain
... particularly orthogonal categories is provenance
... no single tranlsation process. various different requirements, so categories must sync on the fly.
... working on a category integration platform - a test bed - to simulate lifecycle designs
... Pedro will talk about the process metadata in the requirements document
... provenance metadata categories should be connected to process metadata

fsasaki: there are expectations for state machines - what states are aloud and so on. How far are you on this?

dF: discussed yesterday, CNGL is interested and I think the work can be interesting for the work. Particularly the testing setup.
... use of general process ?? labels most important results.
... Des talked about process boundaries, we should be aware of them.

Des: on the state machine question, I wouldn't like to enforce state machine in metadata. It should be purely informative.

Pedro: it's true that it's quite complex, because we cannot constrain the things people want to do in their workflows
... [talking about process metadata] there are three data categories
... readiness, progress indicator, localisationCache
... last category are a special case, because here LSPs are not only interacting but publishing to the Web.
... readiness should indicate readiness for a particular proceess, it's priority and the expectation when it's supposed to be completed and whether an element may have already been committted
... currently target language not part of the metadata
... contentType (e.g. MIME, ...); pivotLang, if you go through an intermediate language or to save costs when e.g. translating from Portuguese to Brasilian
... it reduces costs because you only have to revise

<Arle> Note: remember slides are available at http://bit.ly/mlwDub

Pedro: contentResultsSource, whether the original content has to be returned
... contentResultTarget, should all languages be sent in one file or as separate files per language
... the most important part is to specify the process without constraining it
... process data model 1, define phases and in each phase different processes
... process data model, a list of processes created from norm ??
... this list could be published and maintained so it wouldn't need to be a closed list
... so the list can evolve
... three scenarios of application: consumes (c), generates (g), transforms (t) content
... progress indicator to return information to the cms how much has been completed
... for example, the TMS can return that a process has been 40% completed, but 60% are still to be done
... finally localisationCache. A lot of discussion about this
... it's about real-time translation. the LSP directly publishes and we want the client to be able to specify whether content should be cached
... this is an evolution of LSP

Des: localisationCache is very good idea, but when do you know when the cache has been invalidated? When the source changes

Pedro: maybe you're right and we're missing a not-valid attribute

Des: there must a trace back to the source. and if that source changes your cache is out of date and invalid

<scribe> ACTION: Des to write example for how to deal with invalid cache (re: localisationCache) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/13-mlwDub-minutes.html#action05]

Des: The progress indicator, very useful and valid, but this is an ideal candidate for a service boundary. Good candiate for a standard API

Pedro: progress-indicator better in the API

dF: agrees, it's an API function, not about the content
... the API is a by-product of the implementation

Des: there is a case for it to be in metadata. As a page changes, the system active on that data can update the metadata

Arle: where you have blind operation (crowd-sourcing) so you may not have an API, it could prove helpful there

dF: progress indicator a project attribute, not a content attribute

Dag: we have large XML files with a lot of data. a translator might not complete that in a day, you may want to have information on the progress. There is a case for having progress-indicator

fsasaki: question to XLIFF TC members, how is that with XLIFF

BryanSchnabel: there are state attributes

fsasaki: so there is a solution already

KistenSteffn: it would be a good indicator for technical projects in general.

Pedro: I think progress indicator is good and useful, but the question is who will be implement it

fsasaki: do you want to focus on content metadata related metadata, but if you see something useful coming out of the implementation, it#s good to publish that information
... is it easier to put it in the requirements or figure it out from the implementation? You should figure that out

DaveL: process name information should be informative

Pedro: process data model 1 looks good, but it makes some a priori assumptions
... process data model 2 does not make such assumptions

AlexLik: it's worthwhile watch the terminology

Pedro: is XLIFF an implementation of ITS 2.0

fsasaki: if there is an existing solution use that.

Pedro: if ITS can be implemented in various formats doesn't avoid that we have it in ITS 2.0

fsasaki: should refer to existing metadata and say we can use that metadata also in other file types
... but the definition wouldn't be ours. Else we would have these clashes; somebody uses XLIFF attribute another ITS

Pedro: so what do we do with this data category

DaveL: the discussion is on how do we address the informative aspect
... should not spend a lot of time on this here if it's not normative

fsasaki: wiki page has been updated, there are currently 14 or 15 items with question marks
... need to decide now, what do we put in the normative part
... and then there are other parts like readiness and we would like to see more how it#s coming out of the implementation. Then we can include it in the informative part

Dag: what is different on these data categories from what's in XLIFF?

dF: state attribute has a number of various values, but these are only values necessary for lifecycle. You can't just use them, you need to complete the cycle

Des: agrees, there is a case for readiness within the CMS as well
... readiness is specific to workflows, so readiness is relevant only on that workflow

Pedro: we have this in our API, but we have to find out whether it#s also valid for other format, like HTML
... probably can't resolve in 5 minutes
... but we need to resolve this
... examples, readiness information: what shall we do that?
... targetLanguages also more in the API.

Des: most of these information (on readiness) are project level

dF: place for using the t extension; this kind of information belongs to the project level

fsasaki: one point before we conclude the session. let's discuss over lunch
... then get back and discuss this

Olav: we need to define more clearly the state, the process. Are we defining the process, what actions we want donee with it. And that will define what's in Linport, in XLIFF.

Pedro: readiness is about what's to do. Not what has been done, that's provenance

dF: about readiness, there is too much in it. but I see value for part of it
... in a publisher - CMS workflow

Pedro: in the beginning Kimmo asked us why we want to join; and one answer was that we want to move from workflows to data driven processes

Provenance metadata

Scribe: David Filip

DaveL: Explains that provenance seems a general feature that appears in more areas

Use cases are Localisation job monitoring

Synchronizing Parallel Source revisions

Low cost assembly of parallel text with some idea of quality

Distributed quality auditing

in the sense of customer/provider quality data synchronization

Dave was cechking a use case with Phil from Vistatec

auditing,creates the need to synchronize QA reports

Provenance appears in diffrent spaces.. No single killer use case

There is a W3C Provenance WG

as a W3C WG we should look at work of other WGs

Provenance WG is revising their time schedule

Current time line look slike Jan 2013

Relating Provenance WG approach

Fact are recorded about entites

Agesnts can act on entities

Entities can be created or transformed by activities performed by agents

Entities can be attributed to Agents

Data model of the WG is PROV-DM

They also have RDF/OWL and XML format (not well documented)

also a query interface

ITS linking options

you can use different granilarities

is fairly flexible

any number of agents can be associated with an entity

Quite heavy and not at all intended as inline markup

Take it as is?

Question by Felix

Felix: Can use existing values. Provenance record would be on document level and URI pointing to places

Dave: With Dom, we have such implementation

<fsasaki> felix: mechanism to use the existing values that are not ID attributes would be idValue, if we go for that, see http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/IssuesAndProposedFeatures#Proposal:_idValue

we can do it in various places, basically the same as we do its

In published document you do not really want to inlcude the fine grained provence info

you can later derive segment relevant info from the higher level

There are options for RDF version

We did a fine grained implementation based on hashes

The hashes need to be recalculated if it changes

Dave is asking Tadej about his implementation: Just one URL?

Showing exmample on span level referencing a textual provenance store

entity e1 was generated by activity a1

at timestamp

<fsasaki> example is also available at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012May/0065

start and stop time

As dF said earlier, we can provide best practice for other categories

it would not be necessary a primary ITS category

you can record language in provenance and you can use its tag for that

provennce only tells you what happened, never what should happen

reason to do provance is to record trustworthiness

Felix: The general mechanism is very clear

This needs to be finalized as best practice for others to use for their provenance related categories

DaveL: The WG is approchable, they quite open, not too much grounded in industrial process

Yves has question to a previous slide

Would we need to process the txt version?

DaveL: they have on top of txt, xml, RDF, and query interface

Maxim: But their XML is just one possible serialization, it won't be compatoble with our XML

RDF would be easier, they should provide parser

Maxim: we can put lot of categories there

DaveL: we need a few initial use case

looking at exitsting SQL quality records

we can chain different tools

Jean: Who would own these resources

?

Dave: LSP record would contain the XLIFF etc process story

who translated, who reviewed etc.

It is valuable business inteligence

You want to allocate blame

You get the answer quicker if everything is in one place

we should have a checklist of categories that should be agreed between customer and provider

there is a commercial tension

Dag: Comment, one fairly nice way, not convinced that RDF is necessary, XML should be OK

Info on MT processing should be embedded

should not be too heavy

there would be complexity in processing the link

Dave: agrees

with the second point (MT provenance embedded rather than linked)

Tadej: Adding to the request for inline inclusion

does it all relate to content? Also on markup? Or doesn't it matter?

Dave: You create connection between content and a piece of metadata

We are creating a binding that is very valuable

Tadej: Provenance should contain the binding

Pedro: It reminds me of QR code

Can we use it?

Olaf: The codeis just a representation

[you still need the underlying categories]

Dave: there an be altrenative to inline QA reporting, but as Dag points out, there is cost attached to it
... question for Felix. How about WGs working in parallel,legal, political?

Rules for referencing os not more than two steps behind

DaveL: Our requirement is simple. Informally it should be OK

Givem there is the risk

not that it wouldnot be possible to do

<scribe> ACTION: Item to Felix to check with W3c on status of the Provenance group to manage the dependency risk [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/13-mlwDub-minutes.html#action06]

<scribe> ACTION: Item to fsasaki to check with W3c on status of the Provenance group to manage the dependency risk [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/13-mlwDub-minutes.html#action07]

Richard: they should be excited about the realworld use case we're bringing

Felix goes to TPAC, maybe there

Sebastian: question. Are there other similarly related categories in its?

DaveL: we always say about scope, global or span

It was not fully QAed

Arle: We identified 3 levels:span, div, document

Arle, DaveL: This is now outdated, needs revision

Pedro: Tabular overview is out of date

Sebastian wants to relate cetegories where it makes sense

Felix: disagrees

May make to combine them, but there are different use cases

Interrelations should not be overloaded

dependecnies would be too complex and would potentially prevent new usage scenarios

Sebastian: If you do not sepcify enough, people would not know how to use

Felix: no inline provenance in yet

Phil was talking about qulaity records

this is strictky not provenance

DaveL; we need to specify use cases for inline and not

Especially agents are reusable

Who scribes this?

I think we do not have trackbot

How to invite?

Translation Metadata

Scribe: Felix Sasaki

yves going through target pointer porposal

not sure what the consensus currentl ist

dave: agree that this is a real use case

yves: two proposals for implementations already, myself and shaun

richard: why is this needed?

yves explains the proposal again

des: who would generate and consume this?

yves: people who work with qt ts files
... people who use XLIFF files, who don't have an XLIFF specific tool

des: I see it in an interchange format, but not in a resource format

yves: you can your rule to isolate one language as the source and target
... there are quite a lot of resource file formats that need that information

des: how does target relate to target languages

yves: workflow related
... the name is maybe not good
... other data category: locale filter
... indicate what needs to be translated to specific locales
... would be a BCP 47 language code

alex: does it have to do with target language?

yves: it does, it is like a traditional translate

http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements#Identification_of_Language_and_Locale

<dF> Discussion on BCP 47

<dF> ACTION: Item to Felix to folow up on usage of BCP 47 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/13-mlwDub-minutes.html#action08]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Item

<scribe> ACTION: shaun to flesh out locale proposal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/13-mlwDub-minutes.html#action09]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-107 - Flesh out locale proposal [on Shaun McCance - due 2012-06-20].

<dF> ACTION: Item to fsasaki to folow up on usage of BCP 47 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/13-mlwDub-minutes.html#action10]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Item

<dF> It was not stillrecorded by trackbot..

http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Requirements#preserveSpace

<Tony> Could look at XSLT xsl:strip-space and xsl:preserve-space elements: http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt20/#strip

<Arle> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Implementation_Commitments

Continuation of Work Session after break

Scribe: Arle Lommel

<fsasaki> continuation of session with Yves

Yves: Next one is autoLanguageProcessingRule. It tells how the content should be translated, transliterated, MT OK, etc.
... I don't think there is any implementation commitment.

Felix: Thumbs down.

Yves: Elements within Text is from 1.0. But there it is only a global category. I do not recall why we made that exception to the general case. Perhaps we did not find any exceptions. But after publishing it we got requirements for it. We have two possible implementations. ENLASO and (maybe) SDL. The only change is to add a local aspect to it. There is nothing new except you can specify on the element.
... We should have two implementations

Olaf-Michael: Why don't we try in version 2.0 to allow all attributes to be local or global? There is no reason why it couldn't be at both levels.

Arle: I think there are some exceptions, like mtDisambiguation.

Felix: Besides local and global, there is a way to point to content. Should we allow all of them for any category? It turns out that it represents different philosophies. For some there is no usage scenario. For someone looking at a table of features, seeing one that is logically local listed as able to be implemented globally can be confusing.
... There are two perspectives. One is for clean writing of the spec; one is for implementation.

Olaf-Michael: But if we limit it and we run into the issue where someone realizes a case later, then you have to modify the spec.

Yves: But you need implementations, and we had none. You don't want to force the implementer to implement something they think is useless. Theory is one thing.
... This was the only exception any way.

Dave: For an implementation for something that is both local and global, do the implementations have to address precedence properly?

Felix: Yes. They have to observe defaults. For example, if you see something that specifies globally that something is translatable, it has to respect the local override.

Dave: So you can't claim conformance by doing only local if it can be global?

Felix: You can do either. Let's look at conformance.

Richard: What was the use case?

Ingo: If you have an ITS processor that doesn't support XPath, you can still handle elements within text.

Yves: You could implement ITS with only local

Richard: Did you have customers who demanded this?

Ingo: Not at that time.

Felix: Conformance from ITS 1.0: You need to handle at least one selection mechanism (global or local), defaults, and correctly observe precedence.
... ITS tools must also process Xlink hrefs in rules.

Pedro: In autoLanguageProcessRules, maybe transliteration is the only value that makes sense.
... I think MT should be handled elsewhere.

<fsasaki> ACTION: yves to update the automaticProcessingRule proposal with today's discussion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/13-mlwDub-minutes.html#action11]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-108 - Update the automaticProcessingRule proposal with today's discussion [on Yves Savourel - due 2012-06-20].

Scribe: Felix Sasaki

next context data category

yves: going through context data category, related to tbx term location

.. TBX and XLIFF seems to be similar

.. seems to be important

.. we killed format type because this is similar

.. call it "dave is much better with names" :)

alex: call this UI controls?

.. should one synchronise the names with microsoft related names?

des: this is very narrow

.. for describing context this is a very limited scope

yves: depending on the context value you get one translation or the other

.. so have clear values is important

richard: does this exist in XLIFF?

yves: yes, you have that in XLIFF; restype

Felix: is XLIFF restype interoperable

yves: for the existing list yes, there are extensions with "x-"

.. could also be a namespace based approach

david: in software specialized tools that list is used

richard: where do XLIFF people get info for this list?

scribe did not get the answer

only "intentions", no real committments yet

Implementation Commitments and Plans

Scribe: Arle Lommel

David F: I might be able to have a PhD student work on this.

<fsasaki> david will follow up on "context" with a student of his

Pedro: Let's rename this resourceType.

Yves: Next one is mtConfidence. Do we need the same thing for translations from other sources?

Arle: If you apply it to TM it sounds like fuzzy scores.

David F: Fuzzy scores are not interoperable. Fuzzy scores are basically random numbers. You agree on what a full match is, but nothing beyond that. I think that MT confidence is the same thing: a marketing number.

Pedro: There are five implementation intentions. It's not useful for RbMT, but for SMT it is useful. It is useful within a single tool.

Yves: Combine it with provenance and it is useful.

Declan: Confidence is a big issue right now. It's only valid within a single tool, e.g., benchmarking productivity improvements. We can provide that information, but we don't know how useful it is.

Pedro: Posteditors can use it.

Michael-Olaf: The UN and EU, international organizations are working on objective quality measures for MT.

Sebastian: It would be valuable even without objective criteria because you can still assess relative values within a document, collection, etc. It lets you tell which is higher. It is useful for a developer. You don't really need objectivity.

Yves: If you look at MT from Google, Microsoft, it has two scores: one is confidence (based on human input, between 1 and 6). Other systems have other means (e.g., for post-edited, but marked as MT). Crowdsourcing might also be a use.

Dave: It is useful for post-editors to help them focus their works.
... They don't work in a linear fashion. CAT tool feedback finds this useful.

Johann: It would help us know whether to post-edit or translate from scratch. Something too specific between 0 and 1 might be too limiting. We should account for the different needs.

Arle: The more I think about it the more I think it is general. E.g., Crowdsourced materials.

Tadej: You should prescribe a scale for humans for psychometric validity. A machine scale is different. We need to decide which to support.

David F: We are nowe looking too broadly beyond the intent. Don't expect interoperability, but within a document, it is valuable, as Sebastian noted.

Dave: Perhaps we put crowd assessment into the quality categories.

Johann: The numbers will vary depending on the desired outcome.

Yves: This one seems important and there is implementation desire. But no clear image of what to implement. So within the next two weeks we need to resolve it.

<scribe> ACTION: David to come up with a proposal for mtConfidence within two weeks. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/13-mlwDub-minutes.html#action12]

<trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - David

<trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. dlewis6, dfilip)

<scribe> ACTION: dfilip to come up with a proposal for mtConfidence within two weeks. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/13-mlwDub-minutes.html#action13]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-109 - Come up with a proposal for mtConfidence within two weeks. [on David Filip - due 2012-06-20].

Yves: We've seen interest in implementing specialRequirements.

<dgroves> dF: we have a project at DCU around mtConfidence, so please include us in this dicussion

Yves: One problem is that this category is not fleshed out.

Richard: We already have the note category. The difference is that this is more structured and machine processable.

Pedro: There are two intentions for this.

Yves: We need someone to drive it and flesh it out and have a mid-July implementation example.

Felix: Remember you have a number of other ones to move forward. Please keep the priorities in order.

Yves: By mid-July we will drop things and you may waste effort, at least until the next version.

Action to Giuseppi to flesh out specialRequirements.

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - to

<scribe> ACTION: Giuseppi to flesh out specialRequirements. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/13-mlwDub-minutes.html#action14]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Giuseppi

<fsasaki> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Implementation_Commitments#New_ITS_2.0_categories

<scribe> ACTION: Pedro to have Giuseppe to flesh out specialRequirements. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/13-mlwDub-minutes.html#action15]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-110 - Have Giuseppe to flesh out specialRequirements. [on Pedro Luis Díez Orzas - due 2012-06-20].

Felix: Looking at the list of prospective categories, we need more information on some of them. We need to refine this list.

Otherwise, this is the list that will be in the public draft. It will be the ITS 1.0 draft with extended categories, plus mappings to RDFa and use in HTML5.

Dave: When does it have to be released?

Felix: We should have published the draft last month. That's OK because we published the requirements doc. I said that we would publish these categories in the next draft in July.

<scribe> ACTION: Felix to publish draft with final list of categories in July. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/13-mlwDub-minutes.html#action16]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-111 - Publish draft with final list of categories in July. [on Felix Sasaki - due 2012-06-20].

Felix: Data category holders, please remember to send out consensus emails.

Coordination and Liaison with Other Initiatives

Scribe: Yves Savourel

dF: will go through some issues only
... about relationship with XLIFF. happy that the importance is stressed out
... in our charter we have internal and external relationships
... dependencies are stronger than liaisons
... MLW-LT has one with XLIFF TC
... liaisons: with RDF Web Application WG
... we committed to a RDFa representation to foster integration of MLW in sementic web
... Liaison with ULI (UnicodeLocalization Interoperability group) chaired by Helena from IBM a TC of Unicode
... several MLW-LT members are active in ULI

ULI is looking at a segmentation character proposal

scribe: on hold for now.
... will go back to ULI for re-work
... couple of characters to split or join segments
... many issues related to the proposal. e.g. intended for plain text
... may be to have a mapping to element, like BiDi control characters
... related to our group as well
... Also some discussion about the Unicode CLDR register

Arle: need to assign an action for the register

Felix: didn't we decide to drop register?

Arle: not if Pedro do it

dF: initiating the discssion would be good
... We also have a liaison with ETSI ISG LIS
... LISA is gone
... OSCAR a LISA working group responsible for TMX, SRX, etc. was killed in the process
... ESGI is a Telecom standard body
... not very transparent
... I would like to have a formal liason between MLW-LT and ESGI
... Arle is member, could be the liaison agent
... w don't want to be surprised by a new standard

Arle: names and logos of OSCAR standards are protected, eveything else is under Creative Commons

dF: some LISA standards were co-owned with ISO, so more visible.
... but SRX, TMX, etc. are not
... personnaly: thinks TMX 1.4b is too old to catch up with modern data
... and share a lot
... potentially TMX and XLIFF share inline elements
... Would propose to Arle to be a representative with ESGI

felix: ESGI is not in the charater
... liaison are weak connections, much less important than dependencies

dF: i think ESGI is very closed so having a liaison with it may be good.

Pedro: in 10 day we hace ISO TC 37 will have a meeting in Madrid
... MLW will be there and offer refreshement and a 10mn presentation
... I'm asking for input, ideas, etc.

Arle: Alan will be there too.

<Arle> ACTION: Arle to interface with Pedro on presentation to TC37 by June 20. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/06/13-mlwDub-minutes.html#action17]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-112 - Interface with Pedro on presentation to TC37 by June 20. [on Arle Lommel - due 2012-06-20].

Felix: maybe Pedro can show our agreed-upen list of data categories to get feedback
... as well as any extra ones

<Arle> s/ESGI/ETSI/

<Arle> s/ETSI/ETSI ISG LIS/

Olaf-Michael: Alan melby will be in Mardrid. You should coordinate with him too.

<Arle> s/Mardrid/Madrid/

Felix: about ETSI liaison: what kind of info would we provide and get

dF: reports/updates from Arle on the ETSI activities

Arle: yes I could provide updates

dF: need the liaison because ETSI has no public mechanism to feedback
... also SRX may be interesting

David moves to nominate Arle as Liaison with ETSI for info exchange

<fsasaki> +1

<fsasaki> +1

Felix senconds

s/senconds/seconds/

no dissent

dF: About XLIFF
... currently TC is working on 2.0
... e.g ballot about allowance or not of custom namespaces.
... to me it's a future-proofing measure
... But people against have good reasons for being worry too because extensions were abused in 1.2
... 2.0 will have conformance statements against abuses
... you can join the XLIFF Tc easily

much simpler and cheaper than W3C, and also can interact with the comments list

scribe: OASIS are transparent as in W3C

DaveL: time line about XLIFF 2.0

dF: Twice as many member since last year

no calendard dates set up

for now

scribe: times are different now. My perception is that important players are in now

Bryan: failure in draft not ready in 2013

dF: some move toward a first draft. 3rd XLIFF symposium in Seattle in October
... core should be close to completion by October

Session closed

Closing Remarks

Arle: arle and Pedro will be the two member in Madrid for TC 37

<fsasaki> for upcoming WG calls, see http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/Main_Page#Upcoming

Events: LocWord, 15-16-17 Oct

Prague F2F 25-26 Nov

Thanks to CNGL for the support for this Workshop

thanks to Trinity College for the support

Thanks for Eithne for the support

thanks to the sessions leaders and scribes

Thanks for Leroy for the filming

Thanks to dotNet: they will provide captions for the video